+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Right to Bear Arms (Split from Firearm Thread) (/showthread.php?tid=7713)
- Goodspeed - 10-07-2008
What is the point of an assault weapon (style) ban? I'm trying to figure out the logic of banning relatively large, long, and in-concealable firearms instead of pistols for example. Does it have to do with their range/FPS power? I'm not looking for a political tirade, I just really want to know what the exact thinking is behind such bans.
I really want a M4, but won't be able to afford one before a new ban should it be created. I guess I'll just have to pay up later....
- CaptainHenreh - 10-07-2008
Goodspeed Wrote:...I'm trying to figure out the logic of banning...
Well there's your problem!
- CaptainHenreh - 10-07-2008
Goodspeed Wrote:I just really want to know what the exact thinking is behind such bans.
Since I have some time, I'll try to give you a serious answer.
But basically, this was in fact one of the huge criticisms of the '94 AWB. It banned guns based on features, not lethality, concealibility, or rate that they were used in crime (not that any of these are a legitimate metric with which to ban weapons)
The perfect example is the AR-15 vs the Mini-14:
AR-15:
![[Image: PRE-BAN%20AR-15.jpg]](http://www.militaryoptics.com/GR%20PAGES/GR3%20CAR-15%20REVIEW/PRE-BAN%20AR-15.jpg)
Mini-14:
![[Image: RugerMini14.JPG]](http://guncentral.net/Pictures/Rifles/RugerMini14.JPG)
Now, these two weapons fire the exact same round with identical ballistics. They both feed from detachable magazines of which there are high capacity models available. They are equally lethal in every respect.
The AR-15 was banned, the Mini-14 was not. It is literally that simple. It was ineffectual at reducing crime, and served only to harass law-abiding American citizens and serve the anti-gun agenda.
So, I might have been flippant with my previous answer but I wasn't wrong. There was no logic applied. Guns affected by the '94 AWB were banned because they look scary, or are semi-auto counterparts to modern main battle rifles . Period.
- Kaan - 10-07-2008
CaptainHenreh Wrote:The AR-15 was banned, the Mini-14 was not. It is literally that simple. It was ineffectual at reducing crime, and served only to harass law-abiding American citizens and serve the anti-gun agenda.
So, I might have been flippant with my previous answer but I wasn't wrong. There was no logic applied. Guns affected by the '94 AWB were banned because they look scary, or are semi-auto counterparts to modern main battle rifles . Period.
dont forget the effect that ban had on the AR industry alone!
ps- i just like getting Rex heated on the Glock = gangsta thing!
- Jeff - 10-07-2008
Plastic guns suck. That is all.
- CaptainHenreh - 10-07-2008
TurboOmni08 Wrote:Plastic guns suck. That is all.
Don't you have a brick to chrome?
- Kaan - 10-07-2008
If i were rich i'd be an H&K USP fan boy!
- ViPER1313 - 10-07-2008
Goodspeed Wrote:What is the point of an assault weapon (style) ban? I'm trying to figure out the logic of banning relatively large, long, and in-concealable firearms instead of pistols for example. Does it have to do with their range/FPS power? I'm not looking for a political tirade, I just really want to know what the exact thinking is behind such bans.
I really want a M4, but won't be able to afford one before a new ban should it be created. I guess I'll just have to pay up later....
The idea being that if someone opens fire in a large room (school auditorium, train station) they can unload a lesser amount of ammo in X amount of time (I don't know how many rounds manual action vs. semi-auto vs. full auto with small vs. large clips equates to) and inflict a lower amount of damage overall.
Just to stir the pot (I actually lean towards an NRA member's view of gun control) I would like all the gun owners here to answer this - what other purpose do fully automatic / assault type riffles (the legitimately high powered / large caliber ones) serve other than to kill larger numbers of people in a shorter amount of time? A semi-automatic pistol or shotgun should be enough for self defense and I wouldn't think you need one to hunt. I also can't see their application in sport-type shooting.
- Kaan - 10-07-2008
ViPER1313 Wrote:Just to stir the pot (I actually lean towards an NRA member's view of gun control) I would like all the gun owners here to answer this - what other purpose do fully automatic / assault type riffles (the legitimately high powered / large caliber ones) serve other than to kill larger numbers of people in a shorter amount of time? A semi-automatic pistol or shotgun should be enough for self defense and I wouldn't think you need one to hunt. I also can't see their application in sport-type shooting.
Please go read your bill or rights.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
it doesnt say anything about hunting or sport shooting in there does it?
- G.Irish - 10-07-2008
ViPER1313 Wrote:Just to stir the pot (I actually lean towards an NRA member's view of gun control) I would like all the gun owners here to answer this - what other purpose do fully automatic / assault type riffles (the legitimately high powered / large caliber ones) serve other than to kill larger numbers of people in a shorter amount of time? A semi-automatic pistol or shotgun should be enough for self defense and I wouldn't think you need one to hunt. I also can't see their application in sport-type shooting.
Well, the whole point of the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with sport shooting or hunting. It is about overthrowing the government in the event of tyranny. An automatic weapon would serve that purpose better than a semi-auto.
For someone like me it would just be for fun at the firing range (unless the armed insurrection or alien/zombie/fer'ner invasion happens in my lifetime).
Should auto weapons be banned? From what I've read, registered auto weapons have been used in very, very,very few crimes since they started being made. Maybe there'd be an epidemic now if they weren't banned in the 80's though :dunno:
- ViPER1313 - 10-07-2008
I have the right to hang a pair of bear arms on my wall?
- Kaan - 10-07-2008
ViPER1313 Wrote:I have the right to hang a pair of bear arms on my wall?
way to shit up a thread dedicated to something serious. good job.
- ViPER1313 - 10-07-2008
Kaan Wrote:ViPER1313 Wrote:I have the right to hang a pair of bear arms on my wall?
way to shit up a thread dedicated to something serious. good job.
True - split it to keep the original on topic.
You can argue for a strict or loose interpretation of the constitution though.
- Kaan - 10-07-2008
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
tell me how you see that part of the statement from both sides?
seems cut and dry to me. there is one gun law, and its the second amendment.
- Evan - 10-07-2008
journalists must have a permit to write, background check, must use manual typewriters with a maximum of 5 keys, and must wait 5 days before they can take it home before they are entitled to constitutional right to freedom of press.
- Jeff - 10-07-2008
CaptainHenreh Wrote:TurboOmni08 Wrote:Plastic guns suck. That is all.
Don't you have a brick to chrome?
:twisted: all 44 of its magnumz y0!
- JackoliciousLegs - 10-07-2008
rex, just post that video. Kinda convinced me.
- CaptainHenreh - 10-07-2008
JackoliciousLegs Wrote:rex, just post that video. Kinda convinced me.
Adam does not need convincing, he's just being a troll.
This is an excellent article, written during the AWB period, by much respected police officer Massad Ayoob:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob70.html">http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob70.html</a><!-- m -->
It's an excellent defense of civilian possession of an automatic (I tend to use "machine gun" as the law does when referring to "one-trigger-pull:many bullets" firearms) centerfire rifles.
Adam, were I to pretend for a moment that he was actually serious, was not talking about the assault weapons ban, but rather the need for civilian ownership of semiautomatic centerfire rifles.
As gerald mentioned (and Evan made an excellent metaphor for) the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting. It's also not just about overthrowing a tyrannical government, it's about the common man being responsible for common defense: the unorganized militia, who in the end is responsible for his own safety, and, if he chooses, the safety of his neighbors.
To quote a section from the article above:
Massad Ayoob Wrote:At the time, the Japanese Empire certainly understood [the power of an armed populace] as it drafted plans to invade the mainland United States. In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another.
Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.
Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commanderÔÇÖs face as he frankly answered the question. You are right, he told the Americans. We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.
The second amendment does not allow, but demands that the citizens be responsible for the safety and security of country and constitution, against enemies foreign and domestic.
Not so much about hunting.
But even if the second amendment WERE about hunting, it's still a foolish argument. Bolt action rifles can be cycled very quickly, and in fact when the Germans were fighting with the British, they thought the British were using semi automatic rifles because they were so disciplined at cycling and shooting their Lee-Enfields. On the flipside, an automatic is *very* useful for hunting! An automatic allows a quick followup shot without taking your eyes from the sight picture, which ensures that a wounded animal will not suffer if it is not killed with the first shot, or to allow a hunter to take two animals if he chooses. Not to mention that the most powerful centerfire rounds are almost always bolt action, as in order to make a semi-auto rifle that is light enough to be manageable, you're pretty much limited to a .308 Winchester, for technical reasons.
I'm kind of all over the place here, but I hope I've brought some light to the subject.
In other news, I got a new hogue grip on my AR, along with a nice buttpad and cheek saddle, it seems alot more ergo friendly now, we'll see.
Edit: Adam, before you jump on the "The National Guard is our Militia!" argument, please see US Code: TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 then get back to me.
- NTIman - 10-07-2008
That was a great read, Rex.
I hated my crappy old AK-47 though. It was a worthless piece of shit.
- rezarxt - 10-08-2008
Really? I like my AK. It has a foldable stock and once I finish sighting it in, should be pretty accurate. I have a solid grouping right now but the sights are off.
Its also really really easy to clean. And the ammo is cheap (although its like doubled in the past couple years in price), but its still cheap.
Overall I think its a good gun and does exactly what it was made to do.