Oh those pesky assult rifles......

[Basementdweller]

I was a member of the NRA for a number of years......Then they fought tooth and nail against the assault rifle controls...Honestly they were reasonable.... I quit, because very simply I don't see any reason that a citizen needs a 50 shot clip with a laser sight..... When I read some of the stuff written in the NRA's magazine I know that my views were much different than theirs.....

 

I shot in a bowling pin league for a couple of years....22 rim fire with subsonic rounds lot of fun.... So I am not anti gun......

 

 

This may open the door for some intelligent gun laws and hopefully will muzzle the NRA's attack dogs for a little while...

 

So what do you think some reasonable restrictions or prohibitions should be????

[OldGreyEagle]

OK, define Assault Rifle

[packsaddle]

I also was a member of the NRA. I quit because they became a political organization. I also own a small arsenal of a variety of gauges and calibers and styles and a few antiques. I also carry (but not on campus). My wife is OK with this, long story.

 

A long time ago I was an avid hunter. I'd probably still be but I just don't have time. Plus I don't want to be associated with some of the idiots I see practicing the 'sport' these days (even worse than Dick Cheney).

So I frequent the range. I do own semi-auto weapons of different kinds. For pistols, I prefer them to revolvers, mostly because I think they are better capable of the kinds of the things that people should never want to do but are the reason that I carry.

But for long guns, I see no compelling need for any semi-automatic versions outside the military or law enforcement. When I'm at the range and I watch my mates vomiting out brass, I have to wonder what their goal is? They can barely hit the target, much less show accuracy. And they don't seem to care. What they seem to want to do is make a really loud noise as often as possible. This seems to apply to some motorcycle owners as well but that's another thread.

 

I'd be happy with a really accurate bolt action and a clip that held no more than 5-10 rounds.

I'd also be happy with a hefty tax, say 100%, on ammunition and firearms on ALL sales, including private. But that's just me and I recognize that I'm in a tiny minority on most things. The NRA is not going to change and they are going to continue to hold their position, at least for the foreseeable future. And more people will die. (I also completely agree with OGE with regard to driving under the influence)

I AM a pretty good shot though. My wife is too.

[Eagle732]

Depends on who's doing the defining.

 

Wiki says: "An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies."

The equivalent would be the M-16, full and 3 round burst fire or semi auto (1 shat per trigger pull)

 

Webster says: "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use"

So this could mean your typical semi-auto hunting rifle that is also used by the military.

 

Now the trouble starts when the government gets involved and starts making up its own definition, and since they have the power, they get to make the rules. Take the previous assault rifle ban which expired after testimony showed it was not effective.

 

From www.atf.treas.gov :

Semiautomatic assault weapon.

(a) Any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as:

 

(1) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models),

(2) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil,

(3) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70),

(4) Colt AR-15,

(5) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC,

(6) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12,

(7) Steyr AUG,

(8) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22, and

(9) Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

 

(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of --

 

(1) A folding or telescoping stock,

(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,

(3) A bayonet mount,

(4) A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, and

(5) A grenade launcher;

 

A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of --

 

(1) An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip,

(2) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer,

(3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned,

(4) A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded, and

(5) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

 

(d) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of --

 

(1) A folding or telescoping stock,

(2) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,

(3) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds, and

(4) An ability to accept a detachable magazine.

 

So here we've changed the definition from "Assault Rifle" to "Semi-Auntomatic Assault Weapons" which now includes pistols and shotguns if they have certain features.

 

By the way, i own #4 of from the list in part A. I use it for target shooting.

 

Didn't we just have the discussion about giving up freedoms?

 

 

 

[Brewmeister]

I always find it funny that the second amendment is the one that folks seem to want interpreted as narrowly as possible, whereas in other cases we stretch and bend the Constittuion to guarantee individual rights.

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

"So what do you think some reasonable restrictions or prohibitions should be????"

 

The second amendment is a reasonable prohibition against the government abrogating our rights.

 

[Horizon]

The only control / regulation I would support would be putting more money towards the national instant background check system. This would NOT have done anything for CT, but simply having the best possible instant check system for firearms ownership eligibility would be good. I have also felt that could also be used for checking voting eligibility.

 

But the firearms themselves are fine.

[scoutingagain]

I'm not anti-gun and fully believe one should be able to own a gun for sport, hunting, or even personal defense. However the only reason I can think a private citizen would need to own a military style semi-automatic weapon is if they truely believe in a future zombie apocolypse.

 

It's time we had a national conversation about the role of guns in our society. Review this article from the Washington Post:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

 

I find this statement particularly troubling: " 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States. Second place was Finland, with 2"

 

Why do we put up with this?

 

SA

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eagle732]

I don't know, China thinks it's time we do something about Americans owning so many guns, they seem very concerned.

 

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/china-calls-for-no-delay-on-gun-controls-in-u-s/

 

[AZMike]

Some thoughts...

 

I think reasonable enforcement of existing gun control laws would include the administration prosecuting anyone who attempts to purchase a firearm by making a false statement. This happens very often but is rarely prosecuted. Why?

 

I think the 3-strike laws around the country are quite reasonable, but the administration is walking back from those as politically unpopular with the Democratic Party base.

 

How about a mandatory requirement to prosecute any juvenile committing a crime of violence with a firearm or explosive device (including drug offenses) as an adult for the first and any subsequent violations? That would have prevented Columbine and the Kip Kinkel shootings, as many school shooters (not all) have earlier contact with law enforcement for weapons violations. Same problem with the last paragraph, though - Democrats love to ban guns but they don't like to confine the people who use them, much.

 

To what extent are those who would like to end this problem, or feel that their children are safe in schools (which are statistically safer environments that their homes, BTW) willing to accept the changes in civil liberties necessary to confine an adult or juvenile against their will for the safety of society? To what extent can society say you should be deprived of your right to own a firearm? If the government is aware you have taken an anti-depressant? Because your ex-wife says you threatened her? Because you made a tasteless joke about violence in the workplace? What level of judicial review would you require? If the standard is representing a danger to one's self or others, for how long can you be confined? If medication is required to make you safe for society, what measures should the government be able to take to make you take your meds?

 

If you would like to see a greater police presence in the schools, why did the Obama administration cut back federal grant funding for the School Resource Officer program?

 

If you would like to see specially trained officers stationed in schools as plainclothes officers (like the Israelis do, to prevent terrorist takeovers by the Palestinian terrorist groups), what level of training are you willing to pay for from your tax dollars? Do you want the equivalent of the Israeli Yanam, or the TSA officers who feel you up when you travel?

 

If the answer is more magnetometers, why is the first person the school shooter often kills the magnetometer operator?

 

There are probably as many, or more, people who want to own semi-automatic firearms for self-defense than there are marijuana users. Given our apparent inability as a nation to prevent the sale, possession, or use of marijuana, what makes anyone think a ban on such firearms would be any more practical, or less socially destructive in terms of the actions necessary for enforcement against what many see as a constitutional right? Would the Mexican cartels find a new source of revenue in American gun owners? Will they sell back the weapons that the administration sold them under "Fast and Furious"?

 

Given that several states and cities have decided to abrogate for themselves the right to decide which federal laws should be enforced, such as the state of Washington with marijuana laws, or some cities in California with sanctuary laws for illegal aliens, what is to stop red states from holding referenda that legislate that they will not cooperate in the enforcement of any federal anti-"assault weapon" laws, and that they will issue cards upon demand that permit non-felon state residents to own an "assault weapon" and requiring by statute that law enforcement agencies in the state will not cooperate in the enforcement of federal laws against them? It's likely to happen. In Arizona, for sure.

 

How about a tax on Hollywood producers of violent movies or TV shows or video games, with a percentage of 50% - heck, 75% - of the studio's net revenues from any film or TV show or video game that depicts shoot-outs (or even car chases) or otherwise glorifies senseless violence or feeds the fantasies of unstable youth, with the revenue going directly to support mental health programs (or, if those don't work, maximum security mental asylums for the violent mentally ill) for those at risk of acting out in person the kind of B.S. they see depicted glamorously in the media? I'm sure THAT would go over well with some of Obama's biggest financial supporters.

 

Is it possible that the culture of death we have created in America has so devalued life that we have created an society where a 20 year old can conceive of doing such an act? How many young lives were extinguished in America last year with the implicit support of the government? What does that tell us about the way we view the sanctity of children's lives?

 

Is it possible that such supremely evil acts cannot be simply legislated out of existence?

 

Is it possible that the Pelagian apparatus of the modern secular society, (which has an implicit faith that if we just throw enough taxpayer's money, laws, lawyers, bureaucrats, and therapists at any problem that society can finally be made safe and perfect), will ultimately be ineffective against the capacity of humans for moral evil?

 

Is it possible that humans, who either descended from Eden or descended from the trees (doesn't make much difference either way, does it?), will find a way to harm you, whether you make it easier for them to do so or not? Norway has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. That didn't much help those kids on the island of Utya. Mexico law effectively denies civilian ownership of any firearm. 60,000 were killed by the cartels there last year.

 

Based on the statements in today's WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324677204578183910797348422.html?mod=e2tw), every staff member in Lanza's former school was aware of his problems, knew he was prone to violence, and did the best they could with monitoring him within their legal restrictions. Would a ban on the type of firearm he used (which wouldn't even fit the definition of Feinstein's proposed bill against assault weapons) have prevented him from eventually acting out in a murderous rage, whether with an assault rifle, a pistol, or a revolver, or even a bunch of revolvers in each pocket? Or from using his formidable intellect to make an even more destructive IED? How many assault rifles did Timothy McVeigh need to kill 168 people, including 19 kindergartners, in Oklahoma City? How many assault rifles did Andrew Kehoe need to murder 38 elementary school kids and 6 adults with explosives in Bath, Michigan?

 

Will litigating against a specific type of tool disarm the determined tool-user?

 

What if it wasn't bullying, or access to his mother's weaponry, or Asperger's, or violent video games, or his parent's divorce, or a mindlessly violent pop culture, or if some other societal excuse didn't somehow grab him and drag him over to the firearm, make him grab it, and then force him to commit this evil act? What if it was an act of free will by an adult who chose to commit an act of evil? How uncomfortable is our modern society, media, and pop culture with even admitting that this was not a "troubled" person, but an evil one?(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

On da one side, I think we long since passed the point where personal firearm ownership is anything resembling a credible check on da power of the state. Yeh do realize that da state has mortars and howitzers and tanks and fighter-bombers, and spends more on da military than the next dozen or so nations combined - some of which have no trouble keepin' their larger populations under da thumb. Yeh really think your Bushmaster is goin' hold up to a mess of cluster munitions?

 

That's just certifiably nutty. Yeh preserve da union by raisin' and educatin' kids right, and insisting on a professional military that has the balls to say "no" to some orders, like torturin' captives or firin' on civilians.

 

On da other side, the problem is not with da presence of firearms, eh? Da problem to my mind is a much deeper one in terms of how our schools and our family structure is creatin' these young, lonely, disaffected young men. Yah, sure, and how aspects of our culture enable and glorify use of firearms for violence, so that becomes a natural thing for some young, lonely, disaffected young men to turn toward. Yeh could ban assault weapons and the lad would have done as much damage with handguns and a shotgun. Yeh could take da guns away entirely and the lad would have done as much damage drivin' a truck through the kids gettin' off da school buses in da morning. Yeh could make everyone ride bicycles and he could do the damage with fertilizer and fuel oil. On and on. Da worst slaughter of school children in da U.S. happened in Michigan when a fellow laid explosives and blew up a whole school. Back in da 1920s. He was mad about taxes.

 

Beavah

 

[Basementdweller]

Oh the interpretation and intent of the second amendment.....There is a lot of argument about the intent, So will say that we won the revolutionary war because every house had a gun or two. That is what the founding fathers had in mind

 

Then the other side of the argument, The People were to be organized militia's or even national guards, but a supreme court decision made NG units part of the Armed Forces.

 

 

 

I have a Carry permit in ohio.... I have drawn in self defense once and LEO chastised me for doing it.....fellows that were in all probability going to rob me in the parking lot never filed a complaint or charges. Imagine that.

 

I don't think we are talking about giving up freedoms......

 

So why does a guy target shooting need a clip that holds more than 10 rounds?????

why does a guy hunting need a clip that holds more than 10 rounds?

Why does a guy need a 50 cal barrett rifle?

Laser projecting sight????

Door breaching rounds????

Fragible rounds?????

Folding/collapsible stocks?

Flash hider?????

Quantity????? does a fellow need 200 fire arms

How much ammo in possession is too much????

 

 

I think we are beyond "the I should be able to because I want to".

 

 

 

So is giving up freedom if the max magazine capacity is limited to 10 verse 50 or a 200 drum. I don't see it as giving up freedom.

 

 

 

So how many kids would the fellow at the school killed if he had to reload his magazines or change his magazines after 10 rounds?????? of course it is hypothetical, he could be carrying 100 10 round mags and change them in a couple of seconds.

 

So we take the semi automatic and change it to a pump.....probably still lots of damage, how about a bolt action, slower, how about a single shot, lots slower. Just offering some food for thought????

 

So how many of those kids would have been saved if he had a single shot rifle instead of a semi auto???

 

 

I could careless what china thinks of us..... Of course they would prefer us much less armed. I haven't see the latest Red Dawn movie....But the original got me all fired up as a young man.....

 

 

 

Sensible regulation......

 

 

 

[Basementdweller]

AZ

 

I agree that if you take away everyones fire arms we would be killing each other with crossbows or ball bats. Just the way humans are....

 

I am not speaking of complete ban, but sensible regulation....

[Brewmeister]

To borrow a phrase, "Yah, hmmmm..."

 

So we have Beavah arguing that th citizenry doesn't posess the military grade weapons to defend itself against a malicious state....

 

And basement dweller arguing that people don't need all these military grade weapons.

 

"Sensible" is relative.

[DeanRx]

Yup, that is really what Gun Control boils down to... WHO gets to define and decide what is "reasonable"?