Yep, read it twice. Only time automatic weapons are mentioned by the "pro-assault weapons" side was here, by bama: "The ban needs to go away, because these "assault weapons," contrary to what the liberals say, are not machine guns, which have been regulated since 1934." He is correct. The ban on automatic weapons (along with explosives & other weapons) and this ban on "assault weapons" are 2 wholly separate issues. No legitimate "pro-gun" organization - certainly not the NRA - is suggesting that the ban on automatic weapons should be lifted. Assault rifles are semi-automatic and many can be modified - with kits sold illegally (under existing law, not this particular legislation) - to be fully automatic. I'm a gun owner, and I support the ban on assault weapons, licensing of firearms, background checks, etc.... Which is neither here nor there, just trying to correct a little misinformation.
Im with DD on this one, If you cant protect yourself when you hunt, and actually need Automatic weapons, DONT HUNT... Just because you can't do something right without something illegal doesn't mean it should be legal, heck half of our teens cant read without drugs, doesn't mean we should legalize them.
The U.S. military will not have it easy taking on nearly 10 million gun owners, so there is some merit to the "check on the government thing"... If you don't believe 10 million citizens equipped with small arms, (and only an estimated 6,500 .50 BMG rifle owners) as formidable, then you can look no further then what enemy combatants in Iraq are doing, sans roadside bombs...You can take a Blackhawk helicopter down with properly placed .308 FMJ rounds...Armored humvees, and light military planes can suffer substantial damage from incendiary .50 BMG rounds (which is available now to civilians, legally) The point is it is a deterrent worthwhile, since many posters who belly-hooed my stance, has stated the government isn't to be trusted after all... I may not need an AK47, but does anyone need a 500 hp vehicle?...probably not, but it is a freedom people choose, and with firearms, a field I enjoy as a shooting enthusiast... Be careful when you talk about need, because we can take things you don't "need" away with other aspects from this perspective... I like to shoot near dusk, and I install tritium night sights on my AR15, but because of the useless ban, I cannot put a flash suppressor on the rifle to maximize my field of vision...That is IDIOTIC!!! My AR15 is on the very list by those so fevored by anti-gun agenda in the political arena for outright ban by a replacement bill...That is an infringement that affects my right, and I will not accept that! The gun ban will expire,...and to that, I will shoot a little more happy!
A little more news recently that deals with what I'm saying and the implication with the politics... GOP likely to let assault weapons ban die Kevin Diaz and Rob Hotakainen, Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondents March 12, 2004 GUNS0312 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than two months before Election Day, the 10-year-old ban on assault weapons is scheduled to expire unless Congress acts. But with Congress at loggerheads over gun legislation, it's likely that Republicans will let the Clinton-era ban expire on Sept. 13. There's widespread agreement that the ban is flawed, but supporters of the ban argue that it should be strengthened, not dropped. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., voted to end the ban last week. In an interview Thursday, he called it "more dressing than substance." Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., voted to uphold the ban, saying the guns' only purpose is "to slaughter indiscriminately human beings." Coleman's vote represented a change from his position as a candidate two years ago, when he said he would support the ban as long as it did not extend to semi-automatic hunting guns. Coleman said the difference is studies questioning the ban's effectiveness. "All the studies come to the same conclusion -- little or no impact," he said. Although most Senate Democrats supported the ban, there were exceptions. Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold sided with the Republicans, saying the ban is more symbolic than effective. But the symbolism of the issue is sure to make it a hot topic in the presidential race. "As the deadline for expiration comes closer, there will be a lot more focus on this," said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C. While Americans remain deeply divided on gun control, polls show wide support for the assault weapons ban. A University of Minnesota survey last year found that 75 percent of Minnesotans supported strengthening it. 19 weapons banned President Bill Clinton signed the 10-year ban on the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons in 1994. It also banned the manufacture of 19 different weapons. "Nineteen kinds of assault rifles that have been kept largely out of our country ... for the last decade are going to be back in circulation full force in September unless something else happens," Dayton said Thursday. Coleman said that while Congress is unlikely to revisit the issue this year, he expects to hear more about it as the election nears. "There will certainly be those who will try to make hay of it and try to raise fear," he said. "But the reality is, very few criminals use assault weapons." Several police organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, have urged Congress to extend the ban, citing a Justice Department study showing that the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped 66 percent since the ban took effect. Nearly 200 sheriffs and police chiefs from 15 states, including Minnesota, signed a letter to Congress last month urging an extension of the ban. Among the signatories were Minneapolis Police Chief Bill McManus and Bloomington Police Chief John Laux. Despite objections by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Senate voted 52-47 for an amendment to extend the ban for 10 years. By a vote of 53-46, the Senate also approved an amendment that would have required criminal background checks on all sales at gun shows. But when supporters attached those amendments to a bill that would have given gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits, the NRA objected and urged its backers to reject the entire package. The immunity bill was rejected 90-8. Coleman, one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the NRA in 2002, supported the group's positions. He voted against extending the ban, against background checks and against the overall bill. Coleman received $9,900 from the NRA during his Senate campaign, and the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action spent another $7,558 on a direct mailing in support of Coleman. Dayton, who self-financed his Senate campaign, voted to extend the ban and for background checks. He voted against the bill to give immunity to the gun industry. Both sides plan to use the votes in this year's elections. "The U.S. Senate had its vote. ... Law-abiding gun owners will have their turn to vote in November," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox, the group's chief lobbyist, said in a statement. Kerry knocks Bush Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said that Americans have "no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America." He criticized President Bush for not doing enough to promote an extension of the ban. "When he ran for president in 2000, President Bush promised the American people he would work to renew the assault weapons ban," Kerry said. "But now, under pressure, he is walking away from that commitment." Republicans said that while Bush supports extending the ban, he wanted a gun immunity bill devoid of controversial amendments so that it could pass the House. While the debate continues, manufacturers have found ways to make minor changes in commercial models, such as the AK-47 and the AR-15, so that they can be bought in the United States. "The ban won't change anything either way," said Mark Koscielski, a Minneapolis gun store owner. One practical effect of the ban, Koscielski said, is that the market value of higher-capacity "pre-ban" weapons and magazines has dramatically increased. He predicted a drop in their value if the ban expires. "God bless those left-wingers," Koscielski said. "Because they've made a lot of people rich." Some gun-control advocates are pushing for separate House legislation that would create a stronger assault weapon ban modeled on California law. "I know it's an uphill battle," said Rebecca Thoman, executive director of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota. "But it really is a no-brainer for the public." Some point to "post-ban" types of assault weapons that have been used in high-profile crimes, such as the Hi-point carbine used in the 1999 Columbine massacre and the Bushmaster rifle that was used by the Washington, D.C.-area snipers in October 2002. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., whose husband was killed in 1993 by a man firing a semiautomatic weapon on a Long Island commuter train, said that whatever the defects in the ban, scrapping it is not the answer. "Do we actually want on September 14 for anyone to be able to go into a gun store and buy an assault weapon?" she asked. "Is this what this nation is coming to?" Washington Correspondent Greg Gordon contributed to this report
No, ...but it did lead to Republicans taking over the house, thanks to Clinton's aggressive stance 10 years ago,...Don't believe me? Read the following:... The Federal ban on "assault weapons" became a top priority of the Clinton administration in early-1994, and was passed by a very narrow margin (216-214) in the House of Representatives (where the most resistance was expected). On September 13, 1994, about a month after being passed by the Senate, the "Crime Bill" (which included the ban) was signed by the president. A few months later, Democrats were eviscerated at the polls, losing nine seats in the Senate, and a whopping 54 seats in the House of Representatives, handing over control of Congress to the Republicans. Among the casualties was then House Speaker Tom Foley (who, thanks to some last minute rule-breaking and arm-twisting, was largely responsible for the ban passing in the House); a district tossing out a Representative who holds such a high-level position of seniority and leadership in Congress was quite a rare event. In any case, President Clinton stated that 20-21 of the seats lost in the House were directly due to their votes on the ban. Considering that the Repubicans' post-election majority was only 14 seats, it is clear that Clinton's "assault weapons" ban cost his party control of the House.
For anyone arguing the 2nd Ammendment and the Founders intention I would recommend reading Federalist Paper 29 wherein Hamilton discusses the right to bear arms and the purpose of the militia. He pretty clearly states that arms are for the assembling of state militias for common defense and makes no mention of self-defense or hunting. Except that since the 14th Ammendment the Bill of Rights also applies to the States relationship to individuals so the right to bear arms does extend down to the state level. I also remember there was a ruling last year that clarified that the 2nd Ammendment explicitly guarentees individuals right to own firearms. IMO the 2nd Ammendment has become an anachronism. National Guards and organized police have done away with the need to have citizen militias and the Civil War has proved that when the Fed. govt. wants to it can crush any state or group of individuals out to resist it. Anyway with the rise of media if you want to take on the Fed you are better off holding a hunger strike on the steps of the Capital than trying to storm it with a Kalishnikov. That said I think gun ownership is something that should continued to be allowed. Even though there is no Constitutional basis for an armed citizenry I think it is in the interest of democracy that citizens be allowed to keep arms for their own personal defense or just peace of mind. Obviously there are several people who will abuse that right but that's just a matter of letting democracy. As for the explicit issue of the assault weapons ban I don't see anything unconstitutional about it since "arms" could refer to anything from pointy sticks to nuclear weapons. I would say that this is probably an issue best left to the States since different states will have different standards of what weapons are tolerated.
Roxran; I don't know if you live in MN but I wouldn't put alot of faith in Coleman. That has switched sides more often than Lance Berkman at the plate. I think Hillary's Health Care proposal and the '93 budget had a lot more to do with that.
That ruling you are thinking of was a 5th circuit decision only that the SC did not review. The states (and local govts too) can regulate guns under the Miller case cited by Chump. If you don't believe me, try to buy a gun in New York City or Chicago...
Yes and so apparently can the Fed. Gov.. I was making a general point regarding the 2nd's application to the States along with the Fed. As I said in my post there is nothing explicitly in the 2nd to prevent regulation of guns at any govt. level short of outrightly banning ownership. Anyway "arms" could apply to anything from pointy sticks to nukes so firearms technically could be banned without infringing on the 2nd.
How did I know this would degenerate into more "you gun-toting redneck" taunts? Those "assault" weapons are semi-automatic rifles no different than the ones that are still sold! No one here has a coherent counter-argument to why people should not have these weapons except to say that everyone who owns guns is a paranoid redneck who fears an oppressive gummint. Semi-auto rifles are a legit self-defense and hunting weapon. And no, you little scamps, I never said that I should be allowed to carry machine guns or rocket launchers. Chump, you are wrong, dead wrong. You have no clue what the Founders intended when they drafted the Second Amendment. Why would they need to protect the rights of a state to have a "well-regulated" militia? Did you not know that in those days, the militia was every man who could hold a rifle. Of course, you'd probably been one of those little "conscientious objector" types. I can't believe that people are so frightened of law-abiding citizens having guns. It is a shocking viewpoint that you would defer responsibility for your own personal safety to govt, but yet, you people want the govt. to pay for your health care, your housing, a living wage, etc. It is par for the course in your warped worldview.
ok HeeHaw, then tell me why the SCOTUS has refused to review any 2nd amendment case in the last 70 years? Tell me why the NRA or any other pro-gun lobbiest never brings their case to SCOTUS? If your opinon is correct, that the 2nd amendment gives an unlimited individual right to own arms, then there are a LOT of laws that are unconstitutional. The problem is gun regulation ISN'T unconstitutional, that is why the NRA LOBBIES CONGRESS. Do you even understand civics? "Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976) Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles. If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction. If you want to have a meaningful conversation on this topic, then you might start with addressing what you feel is a resonable restriction. That is where this gun-control debate should be, not about what the 2nd amendment really means, that has already been determined.
If I were a woman, I'd be pretty concerned. From the Family Violence Center... - In 2000, in homicides where the weapon was known, 50 percent (1,342 of 2,701) of female homicide victims were killed with a firearm. Of those female firearm homicides, 1,009 women (75 percent) were killed with a handgun. - More than five times as many women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance (605) than by a stranger (113) in the year 2000. Additionally, while firearm homicides involving male victims were mostly intra-gender, 95 percent of female firearm homicide victims were murdered by a male. - A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. - An analysis of female domestic homicides (a woman murdered by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative) showed that prior domestic violence in the household made a woman 14.6 times more likely, and having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely, to be the victim of such a homicide. - The circumstances of firearms violence differ significantly between men and women. Compared to a man, a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than murdered by a stranger or an unidentified intruder. A 1976 to 1987 analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation data revealed that more than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means. - Between 1976 and 1996, 65 percent of the male and female victims of intimate partner homicides were killed with a firearm. And while rates of intimate partner homicide have been declining, the ratio of female-to-male victims has risen. In other words, when an intimate-partner homicide occurs, it is increasingly likely that a woman is the victim rather than a man. - Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner. - In a study of family and intimate assaults for the city of Atlanta, Georgia, in 1984, firearm-associated family and intimate assaults were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates.
On the issue of small arms in itself being a capable deterrent, I think it is,...the point of ownership and use is not to enable civilians to be on par with the military, but as a side positive aspect (and not the goal), small arms in abundant numbers, such as retained by 10 million plus responsible civilians acts as a substantial issue against improbable governmental tyranny or social chaos... Semi-auto rifles similar to military types are widely known as not being true "assault rifles"...I am glad you brought the issue up here about the scope of "arms",...and you are right it is vague in wording as it doesn't specify the scope of arms...but having said that, it is logical to segment shoulder fired or hand firearms as substantially less destructive than your bazookas, torpedoes, or nuclear missles...Certainly with today's technology, it makes no sense to afford every citizen destructive devices other than longguns, shotgun, or handguns,...even if assurances are met that holders are responsible, it is illogistic to grant rights to those who desire those destructive devices like a claymore, bazooka, flamethrower, or nuclear warhead... Nobody is challenging that stance...but we do have a 2nd admendment that says something about the right of citizens to bear arms or something to that effect..., and there is a line in the sand you have to reasonably draw and the question becomes where do you draw that line starting from the pointed sticks to the most powerful hydrogen bombs, and along the way we have realized the significance of the right to own handguns, shotguns, and rifles is a reasonable slice to fulfill... After that you have to be reasonable within such issues as single shot or semi-auto versus selective fire?... Unlimited caliber or constraints?... It has been determined that the ordinary responsible citizen should not freely use a rifle larger than .50 in diameter, and without selective fire...This is practically, universally acceptable to all 10 million or so gun owners in the United States... The problem has been the change of 10 years ago, because it was done ignorantly and insultingly to millions of gun owers and the generations of gun owners before them Since it is a substantial piece, I will post why the "Assault weapons" ban was ignorantly done and ill-conceived from the start rather than here...
What is an "Assault Weapon?" Just for the record, the writers of the material do not advocate the use of the term "assault weapon" to describe the particular firearms in question. It is used throughout only for the sake of simplicity and clarity, and is done so with a great deal of sarcasm and disdain (hence the use of quote marks wherever it is used), as "assault weapon" is merely a catchy term which was conjured up by the gun control lobby to aid in its efforts to demonize these guns. That said, let us move on. There is a lot of confusion as to what the official definition of a "Semiautomatic Assault Weapon" (SAW). Even the authors of the law seem somewhat confused. The short and simple definition of "assault weapon" is basically a semi-automatic firearm with a military appearance. Semi-automatic means the trigger must be pulled for each shot, after which the firearm extracts the spent shell casing chambers a fresh round, readying the gun for the next shot. This is vastly different from the military assault rifles and machine pistols, which some "assault weapons" are designed to look like. An assault rifle has a mechanism that allows for fully automatic firing, so that as long as the trigger is squeezed, cartridges will continue to be fired in rapid succession until the supply of ammunition is exhausted. These types of firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934, and are not addressed at all in the legislation banning "assault weapons." This is a very important point, as the average person (and many gun owners too) would have a difficult time distinguishing between side by side photos of a fully automatic assault rifle and a semi-automatic look-alike. But despite the similar or identical appearances to military firearms, the functionality of "assault weapons" is no different than any other semi-automatic, which have been available for 100 years. And though the label "assault weapons" is relatively new, this type of firearm is not. For example, Colt began making the AR-15 Sporter, a semi-automatic version of the military M16, almost 40 years ago. The venerable M1 Garand, used by our troops in WWII (and, by the way, is significantly more powerful than more modern "assault weapons"), has been available to civilians for even longer. The 1994 Ban on "Assault Weapons" makes illegal the manufacture of firearms meeting the bill's definition of "assault weapon". The bill specifically bans several firearms with particularly sinister and notorious sounding names, such as "Uzi", "Kalashnikov", and "TEC-9", which despite their military-like, futuristic (or, in some cases, hideous) appearance are functionally no different than other semi-automatics. In addition, there is a "features" test for determining if a firearm is an "assault weapon", though oddly enough, it is not based on complex ballistic testing, the power of the cartridge fired, or any other factor that has an effect on lethality. Instead, the ban defines "assault weapons" based on cosmetic and ergonomic design features that do not have any bearing on lethality. Rifles Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features: Folding or telescopic stock Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock Bayonet mount Flash suppressor or threaded barrel Grenade launcher Among this list of "evil features", only one item initially stands out to the layperson as possibly making the firearm significantly more dangerous, and that is the grenade launcher. However, since grenades and the components to make them are already extremely tightly regulated as "destructive devices", grenade launchers are irrelevant. It would be a fair assumption to say that perhaps "grenade launcher" was added to the list simply to provide a certain degree of shock factor. Other items on the list at least have some practical purpose. The most amusing of these by far is the bayonet mount, which is the subject of an infinite number of wise-cracks (such as, "the ban has significantly reduced the number of drive-by bayonettings"). All joking aside, while a bayonet could be useful in either millitary combat, or a home defense situation, if anyone has EVER heard of ANY harm being committed by a criminal armed with a bayonet on an "assault weapon", please tell us about it. A folding or telescopic stock allows the firearm to more easily be transported and stored, and would also be useful in a home defense situation where maneuverability is important. A flash suppressor reduces the visibility of the bright flash of light that is sometimes produced by firing in the dark. This would be very important for someone defending their family against an intruder in the middle of the night, as the flash would tend to temporarily hamper the shooter's vision. The pistol grip, being perhaps the most "military-like" feature in appearance, in most cases is a necessity of the firearm's design due to the stock being directly in-line with the bore, as opposed to being lower than the bore as is the case with "traditional" rifles. Because the positioning of the stock in the manner does not provide for a place that the shooter can hold on to with the trigger hand, a pistol grip is used. None of these things have any significant impact on how deadly a particular firearm is, and each is a legitimately purposeful feature. Pistols For a pistol to be considered a “SAW,” among other things, it must have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, plus two of the following features: Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip Threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer* Shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded Semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm *Note: "the ability to accept" a silencer does not mean these firearms are so equipped. Silencers have been as heavily regulated as machine guns since the 1934 National Firearms Act. Features such as the barrel shroud and "semiautomatic veriosn of an automatic firearm" were obviously written to target copies of the TEC-9 and MAC-10 and similar type pistols. Again it seems obvious that the authors of the law were targeting the “aggressive appearance” of firearms, instead of functionality or lethality. "High Capacity" Magazines Another major effect of the law is the ban on manufacture of "high capacity ammunition feeding devices," otherwise known as normal or full capacity magazines. "High capacity" is arbitrarily defined as more than 10 rounds. Citizens must either pay exorbitant prices for "pre-ban" normal capacity magazines for their firearms, or use inferior artificially limited magazines. Neither choice is appealing.
Roxran; You contradict yourself this post since you go on to lay what you consider reasonable limits on the type of weapons that individuals could own but Chump's point is valid that for an individual to have any hope of resisting government tyranny through armed force small arms like pistols and small caliber rifles aren't going to cut it. For example under Saddam the Iraqis were almost universally armed with fully automatic Kalishnikovs and other small arms yet they failed to overthrow Saddam. In fact right before the invasion of Iraq Saddam handed out more weapons and ammo to regular Iraqi citizens in the hope that they would resist us. The Iraqis didn't suddenly turn around and use those weapons against the Republican Guard and it still took the most powerful army in the World to overthrow him. So for the argument that individuals should own firearms as a check on a tyrannical govt to have any realistic bearing that would mean no restrictions at all on what type of weapon an individual would own. As I said in an earlier post the thought that a group of private citizens or even a state could effectively hold off the US govt. pretty much died with the Civil War.
I think you could make a fairly decent textual argument that automatic weapons do not fit under the origional term "arms". Even though the recent textualist like Black or Scalia wouldnt go along with this for politial reasons their usual method (at least on an issue they support) is that the words in the constitution are defined from what they ment at the time they were written. This would mean that "arms" are limited to low power, slow firing, inacurate weapons that fire a lead ball. Automatic weapons are a big departure to what arms were at the time the constitution was written. Its difficult to argue that they are still projectiles propeled by black powder. If this were so then large artilery would be "arms" Im not sure if i even but i think it has merit. There is no real need to have automatic weapons. They dont serve any purpose other than possible entertainment for gun fans.
