OK, I know I’ll be flamed, but here goes...
First, a disclaimer: I am not a gun owner, nor am I a member of the NRA. I *AM* a conservative. I *do* support the Second Amendment. I just didn’t grow up in a family that owned guns or did any hunting. The only guns I have ever fired in my life are cap guns, squirt guns, and a BB gun once at some of those fake duck targets at a county fair when I was about 8.
That being said, I am asking a sincere question: What is the problem with banning assault weapons? Why would anyone need them? I’m looking to the gun owners and those who really understand the Second Amendment to educate me, please.
You have to understand that a so-called "assault weapon" is no different operationally than other semiautomatic firearms. The so-called "assault weapon" isn't inherently any more lethal than a semiautomatic Browning .30-06 or .45 Glock .
No flames here.
Well for one thing “assault weapon” is a name Congress made up and applied to one of the most popular target rifles (think National Match course and Camp Perry). Very common plinking guns as well. People own something like 18 million of them, and hundreds of millions of mags for them.
Assault weapon is a label only, it has nothing to do with reality.
I looked at 2010 stats and found that there were 358 or so murders from rifles of all sorts, which means that the “assault weapons” are NOT being used to spray death upon the hapless innocents as the government suggests is happening. The same year there were over 1700 stabbings, fo a little perspective.
Other than that, there have been times when Americans, civilians, had to engage multiple targets. Let’s say you go outside and find that four gangbangers, three with baseball bats, are attacking your kid. A couple 20 round mags is completely appropriate because you are not going to land effective stopping shots on all three with a six-round revolver or 10 round 9mm.
I also believe that these are appropriate anti-tyrrany devices (if they weren’t the government would not lie about them). If you counter with “the government has tanks, F15s and nukes”, I’d have to concede- after all we are winning in Afghanistan and Iraq, we won in Nam and Korea and Somalia and Haiti with the tanks, planes and nukes. I don’t think the USG could stand up to a civilian force of a million, in other words.
Here are two quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” —
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
And read the link about the “handgun against an Army” - it is good.
I wont flame you. I suggest that you go and read the history of the 2nd Amendment. I suggest that you read the Founders views on people owning arms.
Above all, the Founders wanted the citizens to be well armed in order to overthrow the Federal government if it became tyrannical.
Our Founders would have absolutely no issue with citizens owning so called assault weapons.
It is depressing that someone would even need to ask. It’s like asking why would banning the internet really be bad, since we still have newspapers for the 1st.
Here’s the problem with outlawing semi-automatic rifles and magazines. The Founders put the 2A in the Bill of Rights because they wanted “the people” to be better armed than “the army.” We had just fought Britain because THEY wanted to disarm us. Where the army is better armed than the people, (see Soviet Russia, Communist China() there is tyranny. Where the people are better armed than the government, there is freedom. Perhaps you think the Federal Government should be our lords and masters and take our arms from us?
Why should we allow government bureaucrats to decide who can own “assault” guns or whatever? You like democrats are for empowering government while at the same time dis-empowering the individual when the individual is small and the government is already so huge and powerful. You want to turn the U.S.A into a communist nation because the media reports on some stupid mass shooting. the threat is the media and the government not our gun rights , not our freedom , not responsible gun owners who have the right to defend their home against criminals and to have assault guns to defend against a tyranical government.
You liberals are letting the frickin media control you and brainwash you.
Thousands if not millions of Americans have been tortured, murdered and raped because they didn't have a gun to protect themselves.
Each year Thousands die in the U.S.A from just falling down. The killings from mass shootings are statistically non-existant in a country of 300 million. Millions die from heart disease. Thousands of victims of rape and murder not from guns but things like baseball bats.
Also the media is what causes the mass shooters to shoot to w seek fame and to become the next star in their sick minds. The media makes these mass shooters world famous and household names when they can report them it but don't have to identify them in order to not cause copy cats but they do so knowingly.
Note previous repliers have covered the overall right to bear ANY arms. I’ll get into a little more detail.
How do you define assault rifle, legally for the purpose of regulation?
Stop and ponder ...
You cannot, without including a lot of other semi-auto rifles, some designed quite long ago, and which look like ‘conventional’ wood-stocked, blued steel rifles. These have been owned and used for around one hundred years with no problems based on their similarity to assault rifles.
Congress cannot; California tried, and there are many happy gun owners with rifles that look just like the assault rifles they were trying to ban. Because they changed the design to meet the requirements of Calif’s law, they are legal.
“But, I know one when I see it.” Right. That is the gun grabbers approach. The citizens can see them too. A ban on these demonized, easily recognizable guns means the gun grabber is protecting the “American People” from the evil gun.
The idea of “need” is what bothers me most about your question. When did we insert “need” into Constitutional Rights? They are Rights, not privileges or requests. Driving is a privilege, having a telephone is a privilege, being able to watch TV is a privilege. These and other privileges are not given to you by the Constitution.
You have the right to Free Speech, to Free choice of religion, to have a trial by a jury of your peers, you have the right to be secure in your home.
Now, is there a “need” for justifying the Rights listed above? If some think so, then maybe we are doomed.
Rights do not carry a “need” to be accepted , they are a “Demand” to be accepted.
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for thepeople to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”-Thomas Jefferson
"Sniper rifles" like the dragunov/svd were out, as were RPGs etc, but every household could have a fully automatic weapon for home protection. Mostly if they had "a couple," "we" didn't really care......at least the guys I was out with didn't. Who gives a turkey that Mo has 2-3 AKs in his closest? Most of us wished we could have the "real" ones back home too.
I was on an op one time and the guy asked to leave the house and go next door to his brother's house because he feared that his own house would be attacked because of our presence.....moments before he left the house he told us where he had another AK and several mags stashed and told us we would probably need them if attacked.
This was in a war torn country, without an enumerated right to bear arms, where we were facing a deadly insurgency and enemy and foe look alike and live amongst one another.....in which 4k U.S. service members lost their lives.
Now, ask yourself this - What is so scary to "them" about the American people having semi-autos in the U.S. - but not the populace, with embedded enemy fighters, having full-autos in a war zone?
When you answer that, revisit why anyone here would "need" an "assault rifle."
Put another way - Aside from the 2A explicitly stating "arms" I will also give you this......I don't have a fire extinguisher because I'm looking for a fire to break out in my home, I have it in case it does. I may not "need" it at this moment today, but I might tomorrow. Likewise, I don't have "assault weapons" because I'm looking for a revolution or pandemic chaos to break out in my country, but I have them in case it does. I may not "need" them at this moment today, but I might tomorrow.
What is the problem with banning assault weapons?>>>>>
We begin to go down the slippery slope that supposes that guns hurt people in and of themselves. The human component does not count. We single out a class of guns as “evil.”
The class then grows to include all guns.
We know how the left works on this issue, we have been fighting them on the issue sionce Kennedy’s Assassination.
The 2nd amendment and its case law are pretty well defined.But what few realize is that any bill that does not pass congress to ban assault rifles, the president ( so called) will accomplish via Executive Order. That precedent was established 3 years ago with the EPA, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.).
The basis for a civil war between Utopian Fascism and Constitution Patriots is now being defined. This battle will not be between North and South, but will be clustered around certain Urban Areas containiing collectives of Utopian Fascists who go after Constitutional patriots with arms.When the Patriots defend themselves according to law, the feds will attempt to arrest such PAtriots. Then the war will be on.
The demographic will follow that delineated by the map pubolished by the News papaers of the locations of those who have right to carry. Then cadres of armed Utopian Fascists will go after them.
We have seen the first stages of what the demographioc will be in our coming Civil War.That map says it all.
Others have responded to you in various ways. I'll try to add a little to the three points quoted above.
First, I was raised in a fatherless home. If not for my military experience I would know little about firearms. As of today I have no firearms due to an unfortunate boating accident; but I can assure you that it was a very large boat.
I encourage you to track down somebody in your circle of friends who is a gun owner and who can educate you about this and make sure that you are prepared to carry out your militia duty. More about this below.
Secondly, I will address the problem with "banning assault weapons". As others have pointed out, the definition is ever-changing because the actual goal of banning weapons is DISARMAMENT.
Here in the People's Republik of Kalifornia we have had three different "assault weapons" ban laws. It took three tries because the liberals are so ignorant that they were unable to even define what it was they wanted to ban.
One law outlawed a specific list of "assault weapons". I have been told that the process used by the anti-gun legislators was to go through gun catalogs and include on the list all black, scary, military-looking guns. This list included rifles, handguns, and shotguns.
As it became apparent that there were many more manufacturers of black, scary, military-looking guns than the tyrants ever imagined, they passed another law which outlawed "AR-series" rifles and "AK-series" rifles and authorized the Attorney General to add specific models as he saw fit. This law was struck down as unConstitutionally vague and the legislature eventually repealed the authority to add specific models to the banned list.
The third "assault weapons" law banned any center-fire rifle which had any two of the following: ability to accept detachable magazines; a pistol grip; flash suppressor; folding stock; or any of several other insignificant features.
For the most part, existing owners had 90 days after the passage of each law to register their "assault weapons". Such weapons then had to be treated as special items and transported as if they were concealable weapons. (Let's not get into that.)
For some of us, who have no intention of EVER registering a gun which we already own and who have no intention of giving up ownership of a weapon we already own, we could choose to modify the rifle to comply with the silly law or store the rifle out-of-state. I did some of both.
Feinstein's proposal is basically to implement nationwide the same nonsense that has been implemented in Kalifornia, by addressing magazine-fed rifles only and by not allowing ANY of the insignificant features. She also wants to ban magazines that hold more than 10 cartridges.
To answer your question, "What is the problem with banning assault weapons", the answer is that "assault weapons" are anything that people own that anti-gunners don't like. That is, ANYTHING AT ALL.
The farce is particularly well-illustrated by considering the Ruger Mini-14, some models of which are called "Ranch Rifles". Ranchers who need to protect their stock from predation by coyotes and other critters, need a light-weight rifle using an intermediate caliber cartridge and capable of firing many rounds in very rapid succession.
Coyotes typically operate in groups and they scatter quickly when the firing starts. The Rancher wants to eliminate as many as possible before they can run away.
The "Ranch Rifle" fires the same cartridge (.223) from the same length barrels having the same muzzle energy as that cartridge when fired from an AR-15. The Ranch Rifle can be equipped with magazines holding thirty cartridges or more, just like an AR-15.
What do you think are the chances that DiFi and her ilk will move to outlaw "Ranch Rifles" when the NEW and IMPROVED "Assault Weapons Ban" fails to have the effect of creating Utopia? I think the chances are 100%. Of this I am quite certain. Liberals will ban whatever the courts will permit.
Finally, a few words about the Second Amendment.
In April of 1775, Boston had been occupied for some time by THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT'S ARMY. This was as punishment for, among other things, destroying tea stored aboard ship in Boston Harbor on which no taxes had yet been paid.
The occupying Army had already engaged in disarmament measures in and around Boston, including barring the taking of longarms out of Boston and the confiscation of powder from facilities maintained by the colonists.
On April 19th of that year, the Army marched on Lexington and Concord to continue their program of disarming the colonists. The Minutemen, whose role was to respond to such outrages immediately, took up arms after being warned by Paul Revere and others that "the Regulars are coming out!"
Note that the warning was not, "The British are coming". All of the colonists were British subjects at the time. It was their own army that was being used against them.
Before the day was out, the army got its butt kicked by the colonists and retreated to Boston. The colonists then proceeded to lay siege to Boston. The Battle of Bunker Hill was a "victory" for the army in chasing the colonists away from some of the hills surrounding Boston. But the losses were great and sent the message that the task of disarming the colonists was not going to be easy.
Some time later, the colonists sent groups to take Fort Ticonderoga by force and bring back the cannon there to use against the army occupying Boston and the navy whose ships were in Boston Harbor. Note that the colonists were defying their own government in attacking Fort Ticonderoga.
In a masterful way, the colonists dragged the cannon cross-country and mounted them on the hills over-looking Boston and Boston Harbor in a single night. The occupying forces found themselves completely out-gunned in the morning. A deal was evidently struck that the occupiers would leave and not burn the city.
The Second Amendment was an enumeration of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, community, and country. Our Founders regretted that the people found themselves so helpless at the outbreak of hostilities against their own tyrannical government, as described in the Declaration of Independence. The arms they intended to protect included "every terrible instrument of the soldier" and most certainly included the cannon used to free Boston from occupation.
Why? Because it's the most effective tool with which to win the fight, with "winning," in this case, meaning continuing to live.
If you wish to live on the edge, and handicap yourself in any gunfight for your life, that's your right. Limit your firepower, make sighting more difficult, use a less effective cartridge...go right ahead. It will certainly make the experience more exciting.
Just don't make that choice for me. AR-15's, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, are no more dangerous to innocent people than any other firearm.
Please turn in your Member of the State of Georgia card right away.
No doubt you have read the responses which hearkened back to the Founding Fathers intent that all free Americans constituted the "militia", and should be armed because a "free state" is always in jeopardy of attack or subversion by evil men.
Here is a simplistic quote which illustrates a crucial principle: "In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine - Erwin Rommel
Here are a few more reasons:
"Assault weapons" is a purposely scary misnomer co-opted by The Left to lump in almost any firearm capable of firing semi-automatic, and even some which are not semi-auto, which are capable of using a large capacity magazine (the definition of "large" being in the eyes of the beholder).
Semi-auto firearms are not new. They were invented and in use worldwide not long after our Civil War. Large capacity magazines existed even during the Civil War, although they were tubular in nature. Semi-auto (and full auto) weapons were widely used prior to WWI. For example, the venerable US M1 Carbine was invented just before WWII, and commonly carries a 15 or 30 round magazine. These have been freely bought and sold on the American civilian market for well over half a century and there are a lot of them around. How many of these have been used in "mass murder", even after 60+ years in the street? I personally know somebody who has just such a fine weapon and it is exactly 70 years old. Really, one is talking about essentially antique weapons being lumped in with the hundreds of other variations on the theme Frau Gauleiter Feinswein et. al. the Fascist crowd want to "register" ( which really means eventually ban) and regulate/tax by the central government.
Secondly, there is a reason police and the military long ago went to high capacity magazines and semi-auto (and full auto) weapons, both long and short. They are much more effective under many tactical situations than a single shot, a repeater rifle, or a .38 revolver. In short, they can more readily save the life of the user and win the tactical situation. Such weapons are especially effective when one finds oneself outnumbered or in a disadvantageous situation.
"One shot" very seldom means "one kill". (If that were the case, neither the Taliban nor the US Army would exist any more) The ability to employ directed firepower in sufficient quantities and stopping power when one is trying to kill you is very important. Single shot Springfield trap doors, lever action Henry rifles, and .38 Special revolvers are no longer used by the "professionals" for serious situations of life or death. Technology and the enemy has moved on. Why shouldn't "we" have the sane advantage? That was the intent of our Founding Fathers. Standing armies or potentates or even organized criminals are seldom effectively deterred by the threat of muzzle loaders any more! Neither are laws prohibiting the possession or use of modern firepower.
It is very important as a "civilian" (and becoming more important) that as the criminal element increase their own firepower and numbers that we can as well. How much firepower exists in the hands of the ubiquitous drug gangs, drug cartels, Crips, Bloods, Mexican Mafia, or thousands of other organized criminal groups in this country? I'll answer that... a lot!
Such groups also have the advantage (in the "civilian" world) of choosing the time, place, and method to take criminal action against the innocent or unsuspecting. Therefore, even a properly armed civilian is almost always at an initial disadvantage at the start of a serious criminal act because they are not the aggressor. But they most likely are surprised, usually outnumbered, and sometimes outgunned.
Here are some examples where a lot of available firepower by an honest citizen might be needed, and needed fast...
How about home invasions by several armed invaders? This happens all the time and generally with multiple attackers. Keep in mind, even if you can get to a firearm in time to take action, you are usually "stuck" with what you have in your hand. Even multiple extra magazines you don't have on you or a handful of loose bullets in you fist doesn't hack it when you are empty and the threat is not stopped. Also, there is no guarantee you can score a hit or even stop a bad guy with one, two, or three shots even if some are hits. The bad guys have the tactical advantage, the numbers, likely the firepower. So, a firearm with a high capacity magazine is almost a "must" in a deadly encounter like this.
You have heard of flash mobs, right? Everyone has, and they are becoming more bold. With today's communications, any hostile or criminal groups with a little organization and ObamaPhones can quickly assemble at a place of their choosing and attack in large numbers. However, it may not be the Quik-Stop down the corner (or, you may in the Quik-Stop). The target might be your neighborhood or even your house. They can hit, do their deeds, and disperse long before the cops show up. Mobs are very fickle and can be deadly quickly. Defending against a large mob as an individual is very difficult even if you are not the initial target.
Or how about armed gangs of various stripes bent on murder, mayhem, revenge, thievery, or "fun" - motorcycle, drug, criminal, racial? They have their own firepower and lots of it and have proved they are more than ready, willing, and able to use it for whatever purpose they want. What if they decide it is you, your home, your wife, or your possessions they want? Begging for "mercy" might help, but even if it saves your life it won't save anything else from them.
Oh, sure, the cops will eventually show up to secure the scene, put up the tape, draw the chalk lines, forensic the evidence, investigate more thoroughly, and maybe someday even catch the bad guys and who knows - they might even put them in jail if they have enough proof and the jury isn't hung! But that's what the police do. They have no duty to protect you and your family. That is your duty!
Having the means to protect yourself from predators (maybe numerous armed ones) means having the adequate weapons (which in many informed opinions) would mean at least a readily available semi-auto weapon with enough power and enough ammo capacity to do the job. Ergo, we are back to the misnamed "assault weapons" and pistols having large capacity magazines which can take care of the problem adequately and contain enough ammo in case of an encounter with multiple attackers. Pump shotguns and revolvers are nice, but you usually can't carry a shotgun around with you and both need reloading even after limited action, and that takes valuable time and attention which can leave you fatally vulnerable and maybe fatally dead.
Anyhow, there a few thoughts on "why" an individual might need such tools as semi-auto weapons with high capacity magazines.
The Founding Fathers never intended a defenseless citizenry, nor a free people who would allow themselves to be disarmed by tyrants (foreign or domestic) or control freak politicians. They never intended a free people to be subject to the whims of those who want to play the part of abusive husband to the beaten wife.
That is not what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is about.
That being said, I am asking a sincere question: What is the problem with banning assault weapons? Why would anyone need them? I’m looking to the gun owners and those who really understand the Second Amendment to educate me, please.
Here is another well spoken example of the argument of “why would anyone NEED them”???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGxU9GQ6M_g
It is not a good quality recording, but the message she delievers is absolutely clear...
Also, notice the smugness of the asshat call Schumer sitting up on his throne...He and many others would love to make us all victims, dependent upon the reactionary forces to protect us from all sorts of threats to our liberties and freedoms, not just our lives, and the lives of our families and countrymen...
I reject every attempt to control us, when they themselves ARE the very threat to our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness...