Like your guns? Another gun control thread

[Asuka{eve}]

quote:
Originally posted by Asuka{eve}

About assualt weapons. Why do people believe that assualt wepons are like these mega powered death machines? I dont really get how so many people are scared and say that if the AWB sunsets full auto ak's and uzi's are going to flood the streets. They are illegal anyway.


No, they aren't illegal. They are heavily regulated unger the National Firearms Act of 1934.

True I should have worded it differently. With the laws and restrictions full auto machine guns are not going to "flood the streets"

quote:
If you get a grenade launcher when the AWB expires it is still illegal to get grenades.

No it isn't. Grenade launchers are 40mm. Anything 40mm and over requires a Destructive Device permit that you can apply for and get. Sorry, I don't know all the details about this one. What you typically see at gun shows and stuff are 37mm flare launchers and bird bombs. These are perfectly legal.

I dont know that much either about it so dont know how to argue. I cant find any legit reason in my head to own a launcher.

quote:
Supressors and silencers that go on threading are not legal in many states anyway.

Again, these are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

They may still not be legal depending on the state, right? Or does the special permit override that.

quote:
Pistol grips on rifles seem weird. Dont all pistols have pistol grips? Most of the AWB stuff seems cosmetic.

The difference is a rifle with a pistol grip becomes easier to shoot and control from the hip than one without. And you are correct, most of the AWB stuff is cosmetic. That's why manufacturers changed the cosmetics and still sell the same guns. Without doing research, they picked guns that "looked" dangerous and scary.

I don't think they add any effectiveness.

quote:
For assualt pistols how does having the magazine outside of the grip make it dangerous? Having a barrel shroud so you can hold a pistol with both hands seems kind of odd. If you want to hold something with both hands wouldn't you go for a carbine or rifle or anything with a stock?

Pistols with the magazine outside of the grip means more bullets. A barrle shroud means you can help control recoil better and stay on target easier. Handguns are easier to conceal than rifles, that's why the are used more in crimes.

Cant anything with a detchable magazine have the capability to accept larger magazine? On another point Im not sure if this applies to assualt pistols but assualt weapons are used in very few crimes. I concede on the point that a pistol is more likey to be used by a criminal.

quote:
On the other hand the my only problem about the gunshow loop hole is that I dont think 18 year olds need to have firearms. I think 21+ is pretty good.

Doesn't matter where you get the gun, you have to be 18 to own a handgun. Responsible gun sellers will check this.

I concede.

[DelayedReaction]

A major problem with firearms is the stigma that is attached to them. In reality knives, pistols, rifles, machine guns, flamethrowers, missile launchers, and every other weapon ever devised is an inert piece of metal and other materials. Weapons are only deadly when used.

A lot of the fear surrounding firearms is abolished when you actually learn to use them. Many people who have initially been afraid of shooting pistols have found them to be a fun and exciting hobby; one of the women I took my handgun safety course with turned around and had her husband buy her a pistol that same day.

All of the statistics and arguments boil down to one very simple fact; some people are comfortable with firearms, while others aren't. If everyone spent the time to properly learn about the use of firearms this debate would be much less voracious.

To those who say guns should be banned; have you ever fired a firearm? Did you take a safety course? If not, why are you formulating opinions without all of the information you can have?

Yes, guns kill people. So do cars, knives, and balloons. But like the latter objects described, the majority of firearms owned by civilians will never be used to kill a person. The possibility of wrongdoing should not be a justification for eliminating a freedom.

[hrdwareguy]

Originally posted by Asuka{eve}
I dont know that much either about it so dont know how to argue. I cant find any legit reason in my head to own a launcher.

Reason to own a launcher - to launch grenades
Seriously thought I agree, I'm not sure why anyone would need this.

They may still not be legal depending on the state, right? Or does the special permit override that.

Not sure about this, but I don't think the state wins out on this deal since it is federally regulated. That would be like the feds saying Marajuana is illegal but lets say California saying, yeah but not here...oh wait..bad example.

Cant anything with a detchable magazine have the capability to accept larger magazine?

Yes, hence the 10 round limit on magazines now.

On another point Im not sure if this applies to assualt pistols but assualt weapons are used in very few crimes.

One of the failures of the AWB. After the 4 year review, crime stats really hadn't changed much because people weren't using the assault weapons on the list to begin with.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103454,00.html

For anyone interested, check out this thread to see what it takes to get a full auto gun.

[Asuka{eve}]

I know up front its probably going to cost more than $10,000 most likely $15,000 and depending on the machinegun maybe more than $20,000.

[shakran]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lebell
[B] No, obviously you don't.

A "few guys" with some AK47's would not be effective, but tens of thousands of gun owners running guerilla operations and taking over national armory depot's along with defecting soldiers would.

yup. You've been watching too many movies.

Where will you get these tens of thousands of gun owners? Sure, I don't deny that tens of thousands of people own guns, but I will argue that not all of them will participate in whatever movement you're fantasizing about, and of those that do, certainly not all of them will be trained.

Then, where do they get their supplies? An army needs ammo, fuel, food, and water for starters. Of course, assuming a full-scale rebellion as you are describing, the supply lines of these and other resources necessary for the survival of an army (in this case your citizen uprising) will quickly be cut - using airstrikes if necessary.

After that, where do they get trained? Remember that viet-nam was stupidly fought by the US. We'd take a hill, then wander off until the enemy showed up again, then take the hill again. We also insisted on using conventional military tactics on a non-conventional military. This won't happen if your supposed rebellion comes to pass. Your rebels will be going up against the best-trained, best-equipped fighting force the world has ever seen. They will not be able to stand up to the military. The ONLY way a successful rebellion can be fought is if the military revolts against the government - and then the issue of citizens having guns is rather moot isn't it?

[DelayedReaction]

After that, where do they get trained? Remember that viet-nam was stupidly fought by the US. We'd take a hill, then wander off until the enemy showed up again, then take the hill again. We also insisted on using conventional military tactics on a non-conventional military. This won't happen if your supposed rebellion comes to pass. Your rebels will be going up against the best-trained, best-equipped fighting force the world has ever seen. They will not be able to stand up to the military. The ONLY way a successful rebellion can be fought is if the military revolts against the government - and then the issue of citizens having guns is rather moot isn't it?

The insurgents in Iraq seem to be doing quite well.

Whether or not X citizens would be able to rebel against Y soldiers is moot; their hypothetical effectiveness plays no part in determining whether or not Americans should own firearms. The Bill of Rights specifically indicates that American citizens should be allowed to arm themselves, because that is one of the necessary freedoms our forefathers determined America requires. When you restrict the ability of your citizens to defend themselves from any threats, percieved or real, you take away a fundamental freedom and open the door to further abuses.

[shakran]

Originally posted by DelayedReaction
The insurgents in Iraq seem to be doing quite well.

Whether or not X citizens would be able to rebel against Y soldiers is moot; their hypothetical effectiveness plays no part in determining whether or not Americans should own firearms. The Bill of Rights specifically indicates that American citizens should be allowed to arm themselves, because that is one of the necessary freedoms our forefathers determined America requires. When you restrict the ability of your citizens to defend themselves from any threats, percieved or real, you take away a fundamental freedom and open the door to further abuses.

The insurgents in Iraq have been in warfare for decades. The insurgents in Iraq are also made up in part of people who are coming into the country from elsewhere -people who HAVE had intensive combat training in training camps. There aren't groups like that in the US.

And you should be careful using the phrase "specifically indicates" and the 2nd amendment. If it were so specific, we wouldn't still be arguing about what it means 200 years after it was written. If it specifically said what you say it said, it would say "No American will be forbidden to own weapons." It wouldn't have ANY qualifiers (security of a free state line) in it whatsoever.

Why is that qualifier there? IMHO it's there because the framers did not mean "everyone can have a gun and do whatever he feels like with it. No one needs to learn how to use it or be taught to use it responsibly." The framers meant "you know, this is a radically new system of government and some assholes probably aren't going to like it very much. We'd better be ready to defeat them if we want this thing to succeed. Maybe everyone should be allowed to join a militia and be given guns so that we have a fighting chance."

[DelayedReaction]

Originally posted by shakran
The insurgents in Iraq have been in warfare for decades. The insurgents in Iraq are also made up in part of people who are coming into the country from elsewhere -people who HAVE had intensive combat training in training camps. There aren't groups like that in the US.

Odd, I seem to recall there being a great number of militia groups in America training for specifically this purpose. And I have no doubt that we would see foreigners on our land in the same way that Iraq has foreign insurgents.

And you should be careful using the phrase "specifically indicates" and the 2nd amendment. If it were so specific, we wouldn't still be arguing about what it means 200 years after it was written. If it specifically said what you say it said, it would say "No American will be forbidden to own weapons." It wouldn't have ANY qualifiers (security of a free state line) in it whatsoever.

I disagree. To me, the 2nd Amendment is quite clear that Americans should be allowed to arm themselves. Obviously you disagree with me, which is fine.

Why is that qualifier there? IMHO it's there because the framers did not mean "everyone can have a gun and do whatever he feels like with it. No one needs to learn how to use it or be taught to use it responsibly." The framers meant "you know, this is a radically new system of government and some assholes probably aren't going to like it very much. We'd better be ready to defeat them if we want this thing to succeed. Maybe everyone should be allowed to join a militia and be given guns so that we have a fighting chance."

As I see it that isn't a qualifier, that's a justification for letting individual citizens bear arms.

Why shouldn't individual citizens be allowed to arm themselves?

[shakran]

Originally posted by DelayedReaction
Odd, I seem to recall there being a great number of militia groups in America training for specifically this purpose.

Glad to hear it. You show me the one that has fighters, bombers, tanks, howitzers, and rockets and I'll shut up.

Otherwise, I stand by my opinion that you've been watching too many movies. A militia armed with what amounts to pop-guns compared to the military's weaponry is NOT going to be successful against the military.

[DelayedReaction]

Originally posted by shakran
Glad to hear it. You show me the one that has fighters, bombers, tanks, howitzers, and rockets and I'll shut up.

Otherwise, I stand by my opinion that you've been watching too many movies. A militia armed with what amounts to pop-guns compared to the military's weaponry is NOT going to be successful against the military.

You never answered my question. Why shouldn't individual citizens be allowed to arm themselves?

[shakran]

Sorry. I forgot about that question while replying to the rest of your post

I don't have a problem with individual citizens arming themselves. I myself am never without my folding knife, and my house is a friggin' arsenal of bladed weaponry (years of martial arts makes you collect crap like that). I have no problem with people arming themselves, so I can't really say why they shouldn't be allowed to, because I think they should.

All I'm objecting to in this thread is the fact that SO many arms advocates use the "we have to be able to arm ourselves in order to allow us to stop the government from oppressing us." I think that's a bullshit argument. It's a next-to-impossible scenario that the citizenship COULD overcome the government and its military. And since I belive in the idea that bullshit arguments weaken your position, I don't think that should be one of the arguments made.

It'd be much better if people were honest about why they want guns. Don't make it a paranoid "the government's out to get us" scenario. Just say you want it to protect yourself from criminals, or you want a gun because you think target shooting is fun, or you just like guns and want one.

I also object to the idea that the 2nd "clearly" states that we have the right to bear arms. It doesn't. If it were that clear, the debate over it wouldn't have raged for decades. I mean, no one's unclear about the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press are they? It doesn't qualify that guarantee. It just plain guarantees freedom of the press (and other things). The 2nd on the other hand qualifies its guarantee. Obviously there's a reason for that qualification. I think the 2nd clearly says that the U.S. government can't try to disarm "well organized militias."

That being said, it's also important to remember that just because the constitution fails to guarantee a right does not mean that right does not exist. We have the right to surf the internet, eat red meat, and leave the toilet seat up, but there's no mention of those rights in the constitution.



As an aside, I also think that even if the 2nd is proven not to guarantee individual rights to guns, it would be stupid to outlaw them. At this point there are simply too many guns in society. If all the law abiding citizens turned in their guns when it became illegal, then only the criminals would be armed, which would be a problem. If anything, we need to have societal reform to the point where people find violence to be abhorrent and don't want guns. That of course is many years off, but there is no "right now" solution to the weapons problems in this country.

[ARTelevision]

Just responding to the thread title here:

Yeah man, I love my guns.

[DelayedReaction]

Well shakran, looks like we agree. I feel the "we need to protect ourselves from our country" argument is pretty poor as well, and it's one of the reasons I don't use it. I prefer the argument that citizens should not be denied a freedom unless there is a valid reason not to, and no valid reason has been provided to remove the right for individuals to bear arms.

So we agree. Huzzah.

[Peetster]

I'm purchasing a hand gun.

My only motivation is that liberals want to make it against the law.

That's all the incentive I need.

[Wax_off]

Originally posted by shakran
That being said, it's also important to remember that just because the constitution fails to guarantee a right does not mean that right does not exist. We have the right to surf the internet, eat red meat, and leave the toilet seat up, but there's no mention of those rights in the constitution.

I want to point out that because the constitution doesn't guarantee these rights means that they aren't rights, they're privileges. Say, for instance, if a radical vegetarian administration was voted into office (and they had enough support from the people) they could outlaw eating red meat and there's nothing the constitution would do to protect your "right." On the other hand if a law was passed to outlaw christianity then the constitution would have something to say about that, it's a right and protected by the constituion.