Yeah, that's pretty awful too. They're both awful. But there's a decent chance we can stop them--and if we don't, I suspect we may see a repeat of 1994 when the Democrats took a beating at the polls for pushing the first assault weapon ban.
I love his lame-ass excuse about fully automatic weapons and grenades used by criminals in Mexico, weapons that the AWB had absolutely nothing to do with.
There was a great link with photo evidence that I'll try to track down for you, but here's a great legal resource (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/rational.htm). The problem with the "assault rifle ban" that was in place for 10 years was the ban on guns that simply looked like assault rifles, with few other characteristics. It was super dumb, regardless of where you stand on second amendment issues.
Actually my point is that no gun ever needs to be in private hands. I'm in favor of full gun registration, where only cops and the army have any need to own a gun.
Now I understand that Americans are a bit... weird where guns are concerned. You get a bit possessive, I don't understand why, but I've heard enough Americans talk about it, to know that you want some.
Either way, Assault weapons, automatic weapons and so on, should NEVER be allowed near private citizens.
While I don't see what the problem is. You (all countries I know of) already have in place laws that deal with misuse of ANY type of weapon. If I'm a law-abiding citizen, my having a fully-automatic weapon does not endanger you. If I'm not a law-abiding citizen, what in the name of Gog makes you think I will abide by a gun ban?
There are more guns in this country than there are people. A well maintained firearm will last, if not indefinitely, for several people's lifetimes, so even a full, all-out ban would only accomplish making damn sure that there were a LOT of illegal guns available for anyone who wanted them.
The *point* of the Second Amendment (in which the "militia" referred to was, in fact, every able-bodied man over a certain age, not an actual organization -- i.e., "militia" didn't mean a government agency, it meant "the responsible people/voters" at the time) was to make the populace potentially dangerous to an overly repressive government.
More importantly, the point of a firearm is to give a person EQUAL ability to protect themselves. My friend Dana is 5'2" and frail. With the right gun, she's on an equal footing with a mugger or rapist who's 6'6" and built like Schwarzenegger. Without it, she's helpless. Hell, *I* am not that small or weak, but there's plenty of people bigger, stronger, better trained, and able to crush me unless I have an equalizer. Firearms are the great equalizer.
No, the police are not adequate. They can only PUNISH, they aren't (unless you're simply extraordinarily lucky) able to PREVENT crime. If you want to protect yourself, your loved ones, etc., YOU have to be able to do it.
How likely is this to be a problem? Depends on a lot of things -- where you live, etc. -- but I don't think the government has any right to decide whether or not I can defend myself in an effective fashion. The government is not going to be there. They weren't there in the alley the time a guy tried to mug me. They weren't there when an acquaintance of mine had his house broken into by an armed man. It's not your call, or the government's call, in those circumstances; I should have (A) the right to defend myself, my friends and family, and much of my property, and (B) the right to have effective means to do so.
Personally I like the idea of no guns in private hands, but I don't think it's an attainable goal. If someone wants a gun, they will find a way to get one - whatever their purpose - and some people really do need them for a perfectly good reason (e.g. hunters). The idea that bullets should be fvcking expensive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=PdJGcrUk2eE) makes me grin too, but again, market forces and criminal elements being what they are it wouldn't be that effective in practice.
That said, I also like the fact that my country's police do not bear arms. We haven't descended into complete anarchy yet, but neither has the US*. I just don't trust the general population with guns, probably for the same sort of reason that a lot of people can't stand motorcyclists. The minority spoils it for everyone, but in guns' case (assault rifle or otherwise) it spins round into an ownership-as-defence argument. None of us have it right, IMHO, but if it wasn't guns it'd be knives, then clubs, then rocks, then.. *jabbers on for eternity*
I assume you know that your position is considered rather extreme in the States, so I won't belabor the point, but the main reason we like our guns so much is because it's a crucial part of our founding and a cornerstone of our chief legal document.
I'm just happy to live in a country where this is not the case. Where people owning guns are seen as weird or dangerous. Where we can send our children to school and be pretty damn sure none of their classmates will ever have held a gun in their life.
The most I knew of guns as a kid, was those things you get at the carnival for target practice. Or toyguns. And I'm damn glad for that, because I wouldn't want to live in a country where anyone I meet could be wearing a gun, and where I'm supposed to find that normal. It would terrify me to live in a place like that.
I see that others have already responded. I was going ask you to tell me what the hell you think an "assault weapon" actually is before bothering to try to educate you. Given that you think nobody but the cops and the military ought to own any firearm, I don't see the point.
So the short version: on purely legalistic grounds, the Second Amendment recognizes my right to own firearms, including so-called assault weapons. On moral grounds, NO government has a right to disarm its citizens, and especially not a government of limited powers. And to hell with any government that claims otherwise. Hanging every motherfucking one of them is too good for them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 05:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 06:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 11:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 05:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 06:30 am (UTC)Passing laws punishing mostly law-abiding citizens is a lot easier and safer.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 09:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 09:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 10:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 09:03 am (UTC)To allow weapons like that is criminal, and any attempt to pull those of the streets is a damn good thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 11:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 01:50 pm (UTC)Now I understand that Americans are a bit... weird where guns are concerned. You get a bit possessive, I don't understand why, but I've heard enough Americans talk about it, to know that you want some.
Either way, Assault weapons, automatic weapons and so on, should NEVER be allowed near private citizens.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 02:46 pm (UTC)There are more guns in this country than there are people. A well maintained firearm will last, if not indefinitely, for several people's lifetimes, so even a full, all-out ban would only accomplish making damn sure that there were a LOT of illegal guns available for anyone who wanted them.
The *point* of the Second Amendment (in which the "militia" referred to was, in fact, every able-bodied man over a certain age, not an actual organization -- i.e., "militia" didn't mean a government agency, it meant "the responsible people/voters" at the time) was to make the populace potentially dangerous to an overly repressive government.
More importantly, the point of a firearm is to give a person EQUAL ability to protect themselves. My friend Dana is 5'2" and frail. With the right gun, she's on an equal footing with a mugger or rapist who's 6'6" and built like Schwarzenegger. Without it, she's helpless. Hell, *I* am not that small or weak, but there's plenty of people bigger, stronger, better trained, and able to crush me unless I have an equalizer. Firearms are the great equalizer.
No, the police are not adequate. They can only PUNISH, they aren't (unless you're simply extraordinarily lucky) able to PREVENT crime. If you want to protect yourself, your loved ones, etc., YOU have to be able to do it.
How likely is this to be a problem? Depends on a lot of things -- where you live, etc. -- but I don't think the government has any right to decide whether or not I can defend myself in an effective fashion. The government is not going to be there. They weren't there in the alley the time a guy tried to mug me. They weren't there when an acquaintance of mine had his house broken into by an armed man. It's not your call, or the government's call, in those circumstances; I should have (A) the right to defend myself, my friends and family, and much of my property, and (B) the right to have effective means to do so.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 09:08 pm (UTC)That said, I also like the fact that my country's police do not bear arms. We haven't descended into complete anarchy yet, but neither has the US*. I just don't trust the general population with guns, probably for the same sort of reason that a lot of people can't stand motorcyclists. The minority spoils it for everyone, but in guns' case (assault rifle or otherwise) it spins round into an ownership-as-defence argument. None of us have it right, IMHO, but if it wasn't guns it'd be knives, then clubs, then rocks, then.. *jabbers on for eternity*
*in some ways though, anarchy could be fun..
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-27 02:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-27 09:04 am (UTC)The most I knew of guns as a kid, was those things you get at the carnival for target practice. Or toyguns. And I'm damn glad for that, because I wouldn't want to live in a country where anyone I meet could be wearing a gun, and where I'm supposed to find that normal. It would terrify me to live in a place like that.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-26 03:47 pm (UTC)So the short version: on purely legalistic grounds, the Second Amendment recognizes my right to own firearms, including so-called assault weapons. On moral grounds, NO government has a right to disarm its citizens, and especially not a government of limited powers. And to hell with any government that claims otherwise. Hanging every motherfucking one of them is too good for them.