T Nation

Obama, Assault Weapons Ban

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289373,00.html

What are your thoughts on gun control? Should there be total gun control? Selective gun control? No gun control?

I personally like the current situation where convicted felons can not buy weapons but i do not see the need to limit responsible citizens at all.

I hunt and enjoy target/skeet shooting as a hobby and have a number of guns including an assault rifle.

I’ve never killed another human with any of them and never will except in the case of a break in for self defense.

I think gun control and many other laws are really just excuses for the gov’t to arrest more of the populations personal responsibility, thus forfeiting personal freedom while increasing gov’t control.

To quote a cliche, guns don’t kill people. People do.

Violent and dangerous people are violent and dangerous regardless of weapon choice and criminals will get their hands on guns anyways. A ban hasn’t stopped the drug trade or alchohol production during the prohibition.

What is the point in limiting more freedom? What does it really accomplish when most gun owners are responsible hobbyists, hunters and sportsmen?

Gun control will put the law-abiding citizens in a bad position. It will render them almost defenseless. The people who commit crimes will do so with no consideration of the gun law.

The possibility of a homeowner having a firearm is enough of a deterrent to keep invaders out. This is especially the case here in Texas.

What is the second amendment again?

[quote]Chewie wrote:
Gun control will put the law-abiding citizens in a bad position. It will render them almost defenseless. The people who commit crimes will do so with no consideration of the gun law.

The possibility of a homeowner having a firearm is enough of a deterrent to keep invaders out. This is especially the case here in Texas.

What is the second amendment again?

[/quote]
Unfortunately, many people are trying to interpret the second amendment to say that only militias of the people can have fire arms.

Ironically, joining a paramilitary orginization with no gov’t sponsorship will get you on an FBI watch list faster than an individual could buy an AK-47.

It seems as if many people want to squelch gun ownership out completely, and are doing so by chipping away little by little. I guess that is on par with the rest of our eroding civil rights however.

Citizens should be issued bazooka’s, shoulder fired SAM’s and plenty of grenades and land mines upon birth.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Citizens should be issued bazooka’s, shoulder fired SAM’s and plenty of grenades and land mines upon birth.[/quote]

And nukes too.

Sarcasm is fun but reduced freedoms are not.

Lift, you posted a topic about the inherent psychological state that presumably prevents terrorism from working by causing victims to fight back and overcome.

History has shown otherwise, but the idea of fighting back is a real one and people certainly do fight back, even if unsuccessfully.

How would preventing responsible citizens from arming and protecting themselves in case of attack fit in to your psychological assessment?

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
How would preventing responsible citizens from arming and protecting themselves in case of attack fit in to your psychological assessment? [/quote]

Citizens don’t need to arm themselves like the military in order to be effective in protecting themselves.

A good rifle will do the job. Basically, the idea is probably to try to remove the criminal guns of choice while leaving the populace the ability to utilizing working weapons as needed.

Also, you may note that citizens can come up with improvised weapons and tactics should the need arise. It is a weak argument to assume that citizens are helpless if they are only armed with relatively modest weaponry.

Anyhow, I’m not trying to promote Obama’s views, but discussing the theoretical concept of “preventing citizens from protecting themselves” in your recent post.

[quote]vroom wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
How would preventing responsible citizens from arming and protecting themselves in case of attack fit in to your psychological assessment?

Citizens don’t need to arm themselves like the military in order to be effective in protecting themselves.

A good rifle will do the job. Basically, the idea is probably to try to remove the criminal guns of choice while leaving the populace the ability to utilizing working weapons as needed.

Also, you may note that citizens can come up with improvised weapons and tactics should the need arise. It is a weak argument to assume that citizens are helpless if they are only armed with relatively modest weaponry.

Anyhow, I’m not trying to promote Obama’s views, but discussing the theoretical concept of “preventing citizens from protecting themselves” in your recent post.[/quote]

You almost got me to get involved in this thread Vroom, but I’ve learned through the years that trying to have a civil discussion in this forum is next to impossible. I’ve been clean for soooo long Vroom…soooo long. And then you throw out this bait: A Canadian telling Americans we don’t really need all those dangerous guns for protection. :wink:

[quote]vroom wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
How would preventing responsible citizens from arming and protecting themselves in case of attack fit in to your psychological assessment?

Citizens don’t need to arm themselves like the military in order to be effective in protecting themselves.

A good rifle will do the job. Basically, the idea is probably to try to remove the criminal guns of choice while leaving the populace the ability to utilizing working weapons as needed.

Also, you may note that citizens can come up with improvised weapons and tactics should the need arise. It is a weak argument to assume that citizens are helpless if they are only armed with relatively modest weaponry.

Anyhow, I’m not trying to promote Obama’s views, but discussing the theoretical concept of “preventing citizens from protecting themselves” in your recent post.[/quote]

Point taken but self protection is only part of the issue. The bigger issue is limiting freedoms and in this case guns tend to be the issue at hand.

Laws have never stopped criminals from getting what they want. Banning assault rifles would only deter law abiding citizens from purchasing them who would not have used them for crime any ways.

Criminals will still smuggle assault weapons. By limiting gun ownership rights, all that is reduced is freedom for law abiding citizens.

I will concede that a ban would make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on assault rifles, but then they will revert to hand guns, rifles and shot guns.

What happens then? The guns, which are inanimate objects, are blamed and banned as well? Where is the line drawn?

Many people are already pushing for total gun control.

Inherent danger accompanies humanity. We’ve seen the issue in the news concerning post 9/11 legislation. The gov’t seems to think rules limiting rights is the answer while the majority of citizens feel that freedom is worth possible risks.

This gun control issue, with the example being used, follows the same logic.

I guess the real issue is a debate between a bigger gov’t and more regulations or freedom for this nations citizens.

Law abiding gun owners are not dangerous whether they have a .22 or an M-1 carbon.

Murderers are dangerous with said firearms, knives, bats, wrenches,screw drivers and their own hands.

If danger is the issue, should we start chopping newborn hands off? they could potentially become dangerous.

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
Point taken but self protection is only part of the issue. The bigger issue is limiting freedoms and in this case guns tend to be the issue at hand.

Laws have never stopped criminals from getting what they want. Banning assault rifles would only deter law abiding citizens from purchasing them who would not have used them for crime any ways.

Criminals will still smuggle assault weapons. By limiting gun ownership rights, all that is reduced is freedom for law abiding citizens.

I will concede that a ban would make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on assault rifles, but then they will revert to hand guns, rifles and shot guns.
[/quote]

I know. When it comes to gun control I’m always arguing for efforts to find ways to inconvenience the criminals as opposed to the law abiding.

It doesn’t matter what people push for. This argument is not really useful, though it does push emotional buttons.

It’s a right. While rights are often restricted, such as free speech and demonstrations, they can’t simply be taken away and get past the supreme court.

[quote]Inherent danger accompanies humanity. We’ve seen the issue in the news concerning post 9/11 legislation. The gov’t seems to think rules limiting rights is the answer while the majority of citizens feel that freedom is worth possible risks.

This gun control issue, with the example being used, follows the same logic.

I guess the real issue is a debate between a bigger gov’t and more regulations or freedom for this nations citizens.

Law abiding gun owners are not dangerous whether they have a .22 or an M-1 carbon.

Murderers are dangerous with said firearms, knives, bats, wrenches,screw drivers and their own hands.

If danger is the issue, should we start chopping newborn hands off? they could potentially become dangerous.
[/quote]

Again, not really useful arguments from my point of view. Society limits our behavior in lots of ways, such as giving us tickets for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt.

In short, the government steps in and acts as a nanny when the majority of the populace wants it, if it isn’t unconstitutional.

If it could be proven that certain types of weapons resulted in increased violence or increased crime (which is probably doubtful) then perhaps it would make sense to eliminate them.

However, I suspect finding ways to remove guns from the hands of criminals would be much more effective (and difficult) than creating laws that criminals are more than happy to break anyway.

I’m guessing this view is not aligned with Obama’s proposal and that his proposals is really just a way to get buy in from a lot of democrats – in what is mostly a meaningless gesture since criminals don’t seem to care which guns are banned (unless the prices go up).

This is all totally irrelevant. Trust no man who wishes to disarm you. The second amendment is the protector of our republic and the freedoms inherent in it. The RKBA is not about protecting us from criminals. Rather it is to protect us from the government.

Government is a dangerous creature. It is ever encroaching. Both the right and the left consistently and openly violate our liberties. The modern military patten rifle keeps the government in check. That is the way it was intended. When the government comes for your guns you had best start asking what he’s going to come for after that, when your defenses are gone.

I wonder however why anyone would really care to take our guns sometimes. A rifle is only as bold as the man behind it and as time marches on I become less and less assured in the valor of average Americans to stand up against tyrannical government.

mike

[quote]vroom wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
Point taken but self protection is only part of the issue. The bigger issue is limiting freedoms and in this case guns tend to be the issue at hand.

Laws have never stopped criminals from getting what they want. Banning assault rifles would only deter law abiding citizens from purchasing them who would not have used them for crime any ways.

Criminals will still smuggle assault weapons. By limiting gun ownership rights, all that is reduced is freedom for law abiding citizens.

I will concede that a ban would make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on assault rifles, but then they will revert to hand guns, rifles and shot guns.

I know. When it comes to gun control I’m always arguing for efforts to find ways to inconvenience the criminals as opposed to the law abiding.

What happens then? The guns, which are inanimate objects, are blamed and banned as well? Where is the line drawn?

Many people are already pushing for total gun control.

It doesn’t matter what people push for. This argument is not really useful, though it does push emotional buttons.

It’s a right. While rights are often restricted, such as free speech and demonstrations, they can’t simply be taken away and get past the supreme court.

Inherent danger accompanies humanity. We’ve seen the issue in the news concerning post 9/11 legislation. The gov’t seems to think rules limiting rights is the answer while the majority of citizens feel that freedom is worth possible risks.

This gun control issue, with the example being used, follows the same logic.

I guess the real issue is a debate between a bigger gov’t and more regulations or freedom for this nations citizens.

Law abiding gun owners are not dangerous whether they have a .22 or an M-1 carbon.

Murderers are dangerous with said firearms, knives, bats, wrenches,screw drivers and their own hands.

If danger is the issue, should we start chopping newborn hands off? they could potentially become dangerous.

Again, not really useful arguments from my point of view. Society limits our behavior in lots of ways, such as giving us tickets for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt.

In short, the government steps in and acts as a nanny when the majority of the populace wants it, if it isn’t unconstitutional.

If it could be proven that certain types of weapons resulted in increased violence or increased crime (which is probably doubtful) then perhaps it would make sense to eliminate them.

However, I suspect finding ways to remove guns from the hands of criminals would be much more effective (and difficult) than creating laws that criminals are more than happy to break anyway.

I’m guessing this view is not aligned with Obama’s proposal and that his proposals is really just a way to get buy in from a lot of democrats – in what is mostly a meaningless gesture since criminals don’t seem to care which guns are banned (unless the prices go up).[/quote]
The argument may not be useful to you because you are in Canada. It is an issue in the US though.

Banning gun ownership certainly is meaningless, this is what i’m getting at too.

I’m glad to see most people agree.

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
The argument may not be useful to you because you are in Canada. It is an issue in the US though.
[/quote]
Come on, don’t play stupid.

What is it, banning guns or banning certain types of guns which are deemed “assault weapons”? There is a big difference.

[quote]vroom wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
The argument may not be useful to you because you are in Canada. It is an issue in the US though.

Come on, don’t play stupid.

Banning gun ownership certainly is meaningless, this is what i’m getting at too.

I’m glad to see most people agree.

What is it, banning guns or banning certain types of guns which are deemed “assault weapons”? There is a big difference.[/quote]

I’m not playing stupid. There are definately sub cultural intricacies from one nation to another. Gun control is an issue here and many do not find it a stupid one.

There is really not a big difference in the different types of fire arms. They all fire bullets. Most hunting rifles are semi automatic, as are assault rifles.

Many rifles that would remain legal in the event of an assault weapons ban are actually more powerful than typical assault weapons.

A gun is a gun and there is no reason why a responsible citizen shouldn’t be allowed to own any gun he would like.

Banning violent criminals from purchasing them legally would be another issue, and we have that legislation in place.

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
I’m not playing stupid. There are definately sub cultural intricacies from one nation to another. Gun control is an issue here and many do not find it a stupid one. [/quote]

Yes, you are playing stupid. I’m not suggesting gun control or the concerns about it are stupid. Trying to throw away my thoughts because of where I am currently living is stupid.

They either float or sink on their own accord.

See, this is where it gets crazy, because under this reasoning there is no way you’d allow restriction of any type of weapon.

If you are going to go down this road, then you should not dismiss the earlier comments in this thread as sarcasm.

I think you are just railing against government intrusion into the lives of citizens more so than whether or not certain classes of weapons are deemed inappropriate for civilian ownership.

[quote]
Banning violent criminals from purchasing them legally would be another issue, and we have that legislation in place. [/quote]

Again, if you look at what I’m saying, I’m all for finding ways to inconvenience the criminals instead of the law abiding. I’m not sure what you are railing against in my comments.

Banning Assault Weapons is “feel good” legislation. They are rarely used in the commission of a crime. The assault weapon is used as hyperbole more then it is a criminal weapon. Most politicians are uninformed about them to a large degree.

I own plenty of them. Never used one in a crime, never thought about it. I live in a rural area. I don’t know how long the cops would take to get to my house. I prefer my AR to a shotgun anyday.

Gun bans are about as effective as “Gun Free Zones”.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/07/signs_that_work.html