Assualt Rifle Ban Expires

[SurlyPIG]

The "right" to bear arms is a farce made up by those with a hidden agenda (and by arms I mean weapons intended only to kill people like these assault rifles - knives, martial arts weapons, and even hunting rifles are acceptable).  If you don't have the right to kill people, why should you have a right to possess weapons for killing people?  Imagine the conversation in a gun shop:

Customer: I'd like to buy a high-powered, non-hunting rifle designed for the purpose of killing people please.

Shopkeep: Okay, but federal law requires me to warn you that it is illegal to kill people with it.

Customer: I understand.

Shopkeep: Okay, here's your semi-automatic killing machine.  Remember, you can own it, but you cant use it to kill people even though that's the only thing it does.

Additionally, if bearing arms is a right, where does it end?  The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives its citizens "the right to bear arms."  There have been many cases of people trying to extend this right to include arms such as assault weapons and beyond.  I remember one such case that went all the way to the supreme court involving a man trying to defend his right to own a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher.  And I must admit, he has a point.  If you can own sidearms, concealable pistols, long range rifles and now assault rifles, why not RPGs?  Like Dunenewt said, why not MiGs?  On what authority does the law draw a line?  I say that unless your occupation is one that requires you to be armed, you have no right to be.  Hell, even some policemen don't need guns!  Just look at the UK.  Wouldn't it be nice to live in a place so safe that even the police aren't required to carry sidearms?  Then because of the laws in the US you see things like the Hollywood shootout in which the criminals are armed so heavilly that police sidearms are ineffective and they are forced to commandeer more powerful weapons at a nearby gun shop.

This is not to say I think the 2nd Amendment is flawed, however.  A Constitutional amendment is not necessary.  I believe that those who amended the constitution did so only with their knowledge of the the arms of the times without much consideration for what could come.  How could the founding fathers have foreseen weapons like P90s and events like Columbine?  No, at the time of the 2nd Amendment, the only "arms" available were flint rifles and muskets, so for the record, I support the right of Americans to own flint rifles and muskets.  Hell, it was probably only put in there with the spirit that every American had the right to take up arms against the redcoats to defend independance.  It's sickening to think of how many people have died because of what I believe to be a misinterpretation.

[thomas]

they are forced to commandeer more powerful weapons at a nearby gun shop.

they never took weapons from a local gun shop, both gunmen were killed by 9mm berretas.

[SurlyPIG]

I must be thinking of a different shootoff then.  The one I'm thinking of was in LA and started with a bank robbery I think.  There are so many it's getting hard to keep them straight.

[thomas]

I dunno, you may be right, but both were killed by 9mm.

I think I was like 6 at the time or something

[Edric O]

The "right" to bear arms is a farce made up by those with a hidden agenda (and by arms I mean weapons intended only to kill people like these assault rifles - knives, martial arts weapons, and even hunting rifles are acceptable).

Every human right is essentially "made up" as part of the social contract.

If you don't have the right to kill people, why should you have a right to possess weapons for killing people?

In order to injure or kill people who try to injure or kill you, of course. You do have the right to kill would-be murderers in self defence. Besides, like I mentioned in my previous post, the primary reason for the right to bear arms is the need to raise the chances of success of a popular uprising against an oppressive system.

Additionally, if bearing arms is a right, where does it end?

At a certain point to be decided by the people, just like all other rights. Look at the capitalist right to private property, for example. If taken to its logical conclusion, it would involve the right to own other human beings - in other words, slavery. But in most democracies, the people have decided to restrict private property in order to abolish slavery. In the same fashion, the right to bear arms should be restricted at a certain level, and that level should be decided by the people via a democratic referendum.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives its citizens "the right to bear arms."

The Second Amendment is utterly irrelevant to my argument. It is true that many US conservatives treat their constitution as some sort of Bible-like holy scripture, which should be obeyed to the letter, no matter how archaic or out-dated it happens to be. However, such people are on the same level with religious fundamentalists, treating the letter of the constitution as an object of near-idolatry, and as far as I'm concerned they are bordering on the edge of insanity. The constitution is a piece of paper like any other, and arguments along the lines of "the constitution says X, so X must be enforced" are absolutely idiotic appeal to authority fallacies.

There have been many cases of people trying to extend this right to include arms such as assault weapons and beyond.  I remember one such case that went all the way to the supreme court involving a man trying to defend his right to own a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher.  And I must admit, he has a point.  If you can own sidearms, concealable pistols, long range rifles and now assault rifles, why not RPGs?  Like Dunenewt said, why not MiGs?  On what authority does the law draw a line?

On what authority does your law ban the ownership of weapons altogether? On what authority does any law do anything? On the authority granted to the state by the people it governs.

But in any case, this is a matter of legal theory in general, not the right to bear arms. You seem to be eager to change the subject.

[Caid Ivik]

How about a MiG?

Czechs sold few of decommissioned MiG-21 and Aero L-39 fighters to private persons. About 5 million crowns for one, that's not bad, around a cost of average Lamborghini  ;D

[SurlyPIG]

I dunno, you may be right, but both were killed by 9mm.

I think I was like 6 at the time or something

Aah then I'm sure I'm thinking of a different shooting.  The one I'm thinking of involved LAPD officers commandeering a local gun shop to take down the suspects and it was no more than a few years ago.

Every human right is essentially "made up" as part of the social contract.

What I meant is that it is the reason given in favour of unchecked ownership of assult rifles is usually a cover-up for something more underhanded.  For instance, you indicated quite clearly in your post that you only want guns to be available so the populus can "overthrow an unjust and exploitative economic system" and we all know what you mean by that.  It seems to me that you are in favour of legalized assault weapons at least partly because it is a means to see your own political goals achieved.

Keep in mind that while an armed populus could possibly help safeguard democracy, it is just as possible that it would contribute to a dictatorial takeover fought in the name of safeguarding democracy.

In order to injure or kill people who try to injure or kill you, of course. You do have the right to kill would-be murderers in self defence. Besides, like I mentioned in my previous post, the primary reason for the right to bear arms is the need to raise the chances of success of a popular uprising against an oppressive system.

Do you seriously believe that it is safer to live in a society where anyone is armed than a society where only those who need to be are armed.  The statistics are absolutely clear that if you own a gun it's more likely to work against you than help you in matters of defense.  Hell, you don't even need statistics - just use your imagination and common sense!  It is highly unlikely that if you are in a situation where you need a gun that you will be able to access it and use it without being killed first.  The rare instances where it is useful pale in comparison to how many murders and accidents this type of legal ownership causes.

At a certain point to be decided by the people, just like all other rights. Look at the capitalist right to private property, for example. If taken to its logical conclusion, it would involve the right to own other human beings - in other words, slavery. But in most democracies, the people have decided to restrict private property in order to abolish slavery. In the same fashion, the right to bear arms should be restricted at a certain level, and that level should be decided by the people via a democratic referendum.

But what if that point is that guns are made so expensive that only the rich can afford them for their army of hired goons to keep there slave workers in line?  When I asked where does it end, I mean where does it end with any logically justifiable legitimacy.  In matters of life and death, a changing, swaying 50%+1 just doesn't cut it.  If assault weapons become legal for a short period of time and then are banned again, we already have a serious problem on our hands.

The Second Amendment is utterly irrelevant to my argument. It is true that many US conservatives treat their constitution as some sort of Bible-like holy scripture, which should be obeyed to the letter, no matter how archaic or out-dated it happens to be. However, such people are on the same level with religious fundamentalists, treating the letter of the constitution as an object of near-idolatry, and as far as I'm concerned they are bordering on the edge of insanity. The constitution is a piece of paper like any other, and arguments along the lines of "the constitution says X, so X must be enforced" are absolutely idiotic appeal to authority fallacies.

This topic isn't discussing the expiration of an assault weapon ban in Honduras, Edric.  This is in the US and it is prudent to debate it on such terms.  But in case you didn't notice, what I said about the 2nd amendment and how it should apply in this matter is much the same as you have said above.  Interpreting the Second amendment to the letter would mean that all weapons should be legal, from pellet guns to heavy artillery.  What I said took into context the time and spirit in which the Second Amendment was written.

On what authority does your law ban the ownership of weapons altogether? On what authority does any law do anything? On the authority granted to the state by the people it governs.

But in any case, this is a matter of legal theory in general, not the right to bear arms. You seem to be eager to change the subject.

Very well.  Lets cut through the crap.  Allow me to modify what I said above.  Obviously the authority is granted by the people, but on what justification is that line drawn where it is?  And don't just say, "Well that's what the people said so it doesn't matter."  It does matter.  Why do you, as an individual, choose to draw the line at anything up to and including assault weapons?  What is your thought process in that decision?

[nemafakei]

Criminals will almost inevitably be better armed than the general public (and almost never be worse armed). In a situation of social unrest, criminal groups will probably be initially unwilling to support change (and the threat of losing their methods of working) unless the r

[Dude_Doc]

The question, about wheter people would rise up against their own government, sounds a little bit far fetched. I mean, imagine how much they would loose by rebelling against the government. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's unlikely. Like a nuclear war. The possibility is there, but it is unlikely that it will happen.

Virtually, the US government has already broken or bypassed some constitutional laws, and yet, people seems to ignore it. Just like the JFK case. He was shot, the killer alleged, a year later, and things went on as usual. The truth was taken away by the people in the middle of the day, in front of the eyes of the people, just like that, and still, it all seems to be so long ago, so irrelevant. But is it?

That's one example...

[sneezer3]

If we tried to rise up agienst are goverment it would have to be the army. Because if it was just people, then There would be stealth bombers, and the whole crew.

This might sound stupid at first. But if everyone owned a gun or guns where more popular I believe they would be used less. As everyone would be fearful of messing with the other person.

Less houses would be robbed for example. If they know the citizans everywhere had a gun. I'm not saying everyone should go around packing an Assult Rifle. I'm just saying if everyone owned a pistol in there house we wouldn't have as many problems. Quite the opposite messenge is going around though.

I heard about a town somewhere that had a rule where ever house was required to own a gun. They said crime droped to zero... I need to look into the name of it.

[Dude_Doc]

If we tried to rise up agienst are goverment it would have to be the army. Because if it was just people, then There would be stealth bombers, and the whole crew.

The question is wheter the army, the airforce or any special tasks group would be willing to attack it's own people. Remember that these forces too have families and friends, which in turn have their own families and friends. Then, people can be ignorant...

This might sound stupid at first. But if everyone owned a gun or guns where more popular I believe they would be used less. As everyone would be fearful of messing with the other person.

This sounds a little bit like anarchy. But if everybody really had guns, ready for use, people would be living in a state of fear.

Less houses would be robbed for example. If they know the citizans everywhere had a gun. I'm not saying everyone should go around packing an Assult Rifle. I'm just saying if everyone owned a pistol in there house we wouldn't have as many problems. Quite the opposite messenge is going around though.

I don't find a gun very helpful if I don't know when the robbery would occur. The robbers don't just knock on your door, they have plans. If you are a very rich man, and they plan some kind of coup, they would probably find out all the ins and outs of your house, and commit the robbery when you're not at home, or when you're asleep, because surely you're not awake 24/7, are you?

And even if you meet the robbers when they're in your house, it is unlikely that you, in your state of tiredness, would react very fast, even if you had a gun in your hand (and how likely is this?). The robbers, on the other hand, would probably be quite aware of their situation, and "awake" for any confrontation with the host of the house.

I heard about a town somewhere that had a rule where ever house was required to own a gun. They said crime droped to zero... I need to look into the name of it.

Do find out the name of this town, I'm interested.

[thomas]

hmm, if you can own a 12 gauge pump shotgun, then why do you need a tec-9?

[sneezer3]

The question is wheter the army, the airforce or any special tasks group would be willing to attack it's own people. Remember that these forces too have families and friends, which in turn have their own families and friends. Then, people can be ignorant...

While this may be true. I can understand a non-American not hearing about this even more. But already in some military tests it asks something to the effect of Would you fire on other American citizans if it came down to it. Maybe Gunwounds or someone who has been in the army before can verify this for you. 

This sounds a little bit like anarchy. But if everybody really had guns, ready for use, people would be living in a state of fear.

I don't find a gun very helpful if I don't know when the robbery would occur. The robbers don't just knock on your door, they have plans. If you are a very rich man, and they plan some kind of coup, they would probably find out all the ins and outs of your house, and commit the robbery when you're not at home, or when you're asleep, because surely you're not awake 24/7, are you?

And even if you meet the robbers when they're in your house, it is unlikely that you, in your state of tiredness, would react very fast, even if you had a gun in your hand (and how likely is this?). The robbers, on the other hand, would probably be quite aware of their situation, and "awake" for any confrontation with the host of the house.

While such crimes are planned, the question is would as many people robb if everyone owned a gun?

People wouldn't be liveing in a state of fear really. Only in the area of commiting crimes. I know if I was planing on robbing, it wouldn't be somewhere if I knew the whole neighborhood had pistols. Someone might see me.

I don't see it creating much fear otherwise. Whats it to you if your neighbors have guns?

Do find out the name of this town, I'm interested.

I'l look for it latter, if I have time  :)

[nemafakei]

"The question, about wheter people would rise up against their own government, sounds a little bit far fetched."

Certainly far-fetched in the US, simply because of the scale of the country (Russia 1917 was possible only because of the concentration of power in the two main cities). Smaller countries, though, have managed popular uprisings and similar over the past century. Their survivability is another question, of course, having a lot to do with outside relationships.

"But if everybody really had guns, ready for use, people would be living in a state of fear."

US foreign policies, at least, have conveyed to others the idea that a certain amount of paranoia is present (perhaps effecively inherent?) in the country.

But more specifically, when would you be more frightened? If you were expecting a situation where you might be burgled - with the consequent loss of posessions, perhaps at knifepoint? Or if you were expecting to be burgled - with the consequent 'showdown' whereby both you and the criminal has a good chance of being killed? And, since a process of evolution will take place more quickly among criminals where the bad shots and bad tacticians will be killed off and the good ones will thrive, chances are the criminal knows how to handle the gun better than you do, and you won't survive.

I'm assuming you have a gun with the intention of using it.

Personally, I would prefer to live in a place where there's not a significant chance of being killed. If you disagree, fine, so long as you don't force your view onto others. However, as I've said before, to allow guns to be sold to anyone amounts to forcing the situation on everyone else.

[Davidu]

Edric, there MUST be a way for the people to enforce their views other than revolution. That would mean that whenever the population is unhappy they would rebell, started shooting in the streets, arrest and execute the guvernement in the name of democracy and well-being. But the next guvernement will have to deal with even more problems and it will be overthrown again, and so the country will run out of competent people to run it. We're not talking about our own where every moron is in the parliament. And besides... would you like to rebell everytime you don't like something. Revolutions cause unnecessary deaths.

"Hey, John, what's up?"

"Revolution!!!"

"What? Again? Only last month we rebelled..."

"So are you coming? I heard it's going to be a public execution & stuff."

"Nah... I'm tired... Maybe next month..."

About the right to bear arms... Well. as I said... any moron can use a weapon and can kill you even if he isn't robbing you. Hell.. he might not even want to kill you.

Hunting rifles... OK.

Pistols... OK.

But not weapons that could create mayhem... (like the others wouldn't be enough).

What about if I wanted a flamethrower... for my own protection of course. I need it, don't I? Who'd rob me if they'll risk such an awful death? Cool, uh?

What I mean is that not everyone is responsable enough to be entrusted with a gun. The kids could find it when playing in the house. What then?

[Caid Ivik]

Edric, there MUST be a way for the people to enforce their views other than revolution. That would mean that whenever the population is unhappy they would rebell, started shooting in the streets, arrest and execute the guvernement in the name of democracy and well-being. But the next guvernement will have to deal with even more problems and it will be overthrown again, and so the country will run out of competent people to run it. We're not talking about our own where every moron is in the parliament. And besides... would you like to rebell everytime you don't like something. Revolutions cause unnecessary deaths.

Exactly! Memetic warfare, hydraulic despotism, public educative&massmedial control, power decentralization and other forms of modern humanized overthrows already replaced the old, messy and bloody way. They are more effective and nearly painless.

[exatreide]

War Is peace

Freedom Is Slavery

Ignorence Is Strength...... ;)

[Wolf]

12-gauge is probably more dangerous [than an AR]. I don't mean to say that ARs are worthless -- dangerous weapons to be sure. Made for war. But, if you hit something meaty with a 12-gauge... you're going to have hamburger. AR's perforate. Shotguns chew.

[Davidu]

So what's the point Wolfwiz?  ???

You mean rifles are cleaner than shotguns?

DOES IT MATTER?

[SurlyPIG]

12-gauge is probably more dangerous [than an AR]. I don't mean to say that ARs are worthless -- dangerous weapons to be sure. Made for war. But, if you hit something meaty with a 12-gauge... you're going to have hamburger. AR's perforate. Shotguns chew.

Indeed, although the range is much shorter than assault rifles.  Nevertheless, IMO, shotguns should be illegal as well.

[thomas]

shotguns are used in hunting though, ARs are jsut used for killing

[Wolf]

Well, trap, skeet, and other forms of shooting are sports. Shotguns are the weapons used in these sports. Trap is an Olympic sport. This is not simply an American issue.

[Edric O]

Well, it certainly looks like I have a lot of posts to answer in this thread - sorry for the delay.

What I meant is that it is the reason given in favour of unchecked ownership of assult rifles is usually a cover-up for something more underhanded.  For instance, you indicated quite clearly in your post that you only want guns to be available so the populus can "overthrow an unjust and exploitative economic system" and we all know what you mean by that.  It seems to me that you are in favour of legalized assault weapons at least partly because it is a means to see your own political goals achieved.

...assuming the people want my own political goals to be achieved, of course. An armed populace won't just wake up one day and decide to start a communist revolution out of the blue. The right to bear arms only helps to further my political goals if the majority of the people agree with those political goals.

In fact, the right to bear arms will always help further the political goals of the majority of the population, whatever those goals may be. Thus, it is an inherently democratic right. It gives power to the people - literraly.

Keep in mind that while an armed populus could possibly help safeguard democracy, it is just as possible that it would contribute to a dictatorial takeover fought in the name of safeguarding democracy.

It could theoretically contribute to anything, as long as the people want it. If the people want a dictatorship, then the only way to stop them from instituting that dictatorship is by taking power out of their hands - in other words, by instituting your own dictatorship. Quite hypocritical, don't you think?

Do you seriously believe that it is safer to live in a society where anyone is armed than a society where only those who need to be are armed.

No, of course not - and I never claimed such a thing. Legal gun ownership will certainly not lead to more safety against criminals. But it will lead to more safety against tyrants.

But what if that point is that guns are made so expensive that only the rich can afford them for their army of hired goons to keep there slave workers in line?

Keep in mind that I said this matter should be decided by democratic vote. How likely is it that slave workers would vote for a measure to give their masters more power?

When I asked where does it end, I mean where does it end with any logically justifiable legitimacy.  In matters of life and death, a changing, swaying 50%+1 just doesn't cut it.  If assault weapons become legal for a short period of time and then are banned again, we already have a serious problem on our hands.

The logic is simple: We have two choices regarding the issue of how this decision should be made. Either (a) let the "changing, swaying 50%+1" decide, or (b) let a minority decide, or maybe even give the power of decision to a single person. The majority might not always make the right decision, but at least it's better than leaving the decision up to a minority or a single person.

Very well.  Lets cut through the crap.  Allow me to modify what I said above.  Obviously the authority is granted by the people, but on what justification is that line drawn where it is?  And don't just say, "Well that's what the people said so it doesn't matter."  It does matter.  Why do you, as an individual, choose to draw the line at anything up to and including assault weapons?  What is your thought process in that decision?

My line of reasoning goes like this: In drawing the line, we must reach a balance between two opposing concerns: (1) The people must have the right to hold sufficient firepower to be able to fight against oppression. (2) There is always the danger that some deranged individual could go on a rampage; therefore, the kind of firepower available to the people must be limited so as to make sure that any such rampage does not cause too many casualties. Giving the people no weapons at all would be an exaggeration of concern #2, while completely ignoring concern #1. Giving the people rocket launchers, on the other hand, would be an exaggeration of concern #1, while completely ignoring concern #2.

[Edric O]

Criminals will almost inevitably be better armed than the general public (and almost never be worse armed). In a situation of social unrest, criminal groups will probably be initially unwilling to support change (and the threat of losing their methods of working) unless the r

[Caid Ivik]

It doesn't work that way. A criminal's ability (or inability) to get a rocket launcher is not influenced by whether handguns are legal or not. If a certain weapon class is legalised, that will not make it easier for criminals to purchase the other kinds of weapons.

Very good point. However these criminals (should) attract police organs already by amassing such equipment. If you could buy a bazooka at local army shop, no one would be able to prevent you to do so, even if you want to use it on criminal activity (I nearly wrote "terrorism" ;D ). But to be sure, it's not very hard on higher business sphere to obtain strong explosives like semtex or danubit without care of police even if you officially run a restaurant, so I agree with you.