Assualt Weapons Ban

[Sgt_Shellback]

Phew then. Considering some people I've met, that post was all too real.

You might want to be careful about your wording too. It was like:

"I PLAN TO BLOW UP L.A. ON THE FOURTH OF JULY.

Also, I am a dog person. Just kidding! I love cats."

The "just kidding" aspect was downplayed somewhat. :O

LOL - I'm a cat person by necessity. I'm hardly ever home so a dog (Which I prefer) would go nuts with lack of attention... I get the impression my cats like it when they have the house to themselves and hate it when I come home so it works.

Anyway... Both sides of the ban that just lapsed with few exceptions were pretty much in a greement that the law was stupid. Who knows what the future will hold.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

The faster the rednecks start the 2nd American Civil War, the faster the EU turns super. therefore I just love to see assault weapons ban over.


(notice that I am too lazy to input sarcasm tags)

The EU would have to stop bickering for them to become a SP... I don't see that happening anytime soon. (Same comment about laziness)

 

[Korgoth]

There won't be a civl war, only a war between humans and robots when skynet goes online!!!!!! AAARGH!
.

 

[marty905]

anyone actualy got an assault weapon ??

i got normal guns remington 710 in .30-06 Rifle

and a savage arms .22LR rifle

 

[Rico]

Ban all weapons (except for hunting and maybe sport) and you wont have as much crime and stuff in the states..

That's a very naive statement, crime is not caused by guns and weapons, it's caused by the people who use them.

If guns are removed from the market then criminals can still get them through illegal means and petty criminals who don't have access to them still have a myriad of tools to use to hurt people.

If the issue were this simple it would have been solved long ago don' you think?

 

[SupremePain]

i think america's relationship to guns is sick. it says in your damn constitution that everyone has the right to carry a firearm and thats just too messed up for me. :x

check out this site....

its just complete madness to allow such powerfull weapons in the hands of citizens...

by the way yearly stats of how many people killed in the US by firearms is 10.000, before the ban it was 16.000 (heard this on the news so sad to say i dont really have any other sources confirming that)

 

[el Chi]

That's a very naive statement, crime is not caused by guns and weapons, it's caused by the people who use them.

"Guns don't kill people, people do" is a naive statement. Alright, so there is some truth to it, but guns are designed for killing, and many (if not most) guns are designed specifically for killing other people.
As Eddie Izzard pointed out: "The gun helps..."

If guns are removed from the market then criminals can still get them through illegal means and petty criminals who don't have access to them still have a myriad of tools to use to hurt people.

Uh-huh. So it's better for petty criminals to have guns than hammers?

If the issue were this simple it would have been solved long ago don' you think?

Britain had an incident about a decade ago where an unbalanced individual took a legally owned handgun, went into a local primary school and started to kill people. The British government put a ban on handguns and an amnesty was held whereby people could hand in their firearms without any questions or repercussions; it was hugely successful.
In the United States, Marilyn Manson is blamed, nothing changes and so the world progresses.
No, the issue is not simple, but steps need to be taken that are different to scapegoating.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

I will agree with you that the UK is better off with it's civilians unarmed.... Can you picture Benny hill trying to shoot? LOL

 

[Hapless]

I can't believe you typed that. You're joking, right?
Please be joking.

There's about as much evidence that Wiccans are "right" as there is that mainsteream Christianity is "right."

i.e.: Not one scrap.

<sigh> This was in response to a post a few pages back where somebody or other said the 2nd Amendment was outdated and the Founding Fathers didn't foresee automatic weapons. Or something like that. I personally am somewhat areligious (no, that's not a typo), but I respect those that adhere to a religion (i.e. follows the tenets of the religion, not goes to church on Sunday and then carouses for the rest of the week.) As they say, there's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not.

 

[Anthraxxx]

\o/

Now i can go deer hunting with my rifle on full auto!!!

 

[CptStern]

arent you supposed to walk around with the safety on so you wont accidentily shoot yourself? :thumbs:

 

[FoxDie]

I think it's funny how "assualt weapon" is such a massive buzz word. People hear it and think, "Oh my God, assault weapon?!?! imagine how many murders must be done with those!! BAN BAN BAN!" When the truth of the matter is, most murders are done with handguns. "Assault weapon" just sounds scary, so the statistics don't matter. If they were called,"bunny weapons" we wouldn't be having this discussion

Besides, some of you are saying, "we need to get full auto weapons off the streets!" when, in reality, all of the full auto weapons being used in crimes (not many) are illegally obtained, or illegally modified. Criminals will still be bale to get these if you ban them. All banning does is take them away from rich 65 year old men who can afford the permits and the weapons (a standard full auto weapon that is legal for civilian use can easily fetch $10,000)



EDIT: and let me repeat: the ban does not illegalize full auto weapons, they only illegalize parts of semi automatic weapons

 

[OCybrManO]

The more powerful the weapon... the more dangerous the criminal. A criminal with a bat or a knife is not as dangerous as a criminal with an AK-47. Have fun trying to rob a bank with a weapon that only works within a 5ft radius. How do you hold a large group hostage without a ranged weapon? What do you do if they run?

Guns might not make criminals... but they definately empower criminals.

Buying a gun for protection is statistically a bad idea. In a crime, the bad guy always has the advantage of suprising you. If you reach for your gun he can, and will, shoot you first... even if he initially had no intention of harming you. Guns are also far more likely to accidentally kill or injure their owner (or a family member) than an intruder.

EDIT: Before anyone quotes me and says "It doesn't ban [whatever]!"... I know. I'm saying we shouldn't have these kinds of guns ("assault" rifles) in the first place. They are only good for war and crime.

 

[willyd]

We in Texas are very glad this bill is over. Even though we already owned the banned weapons (semi-autos) and many of my friends still have weapons that were banned a long time ago (autos)
"The semi-automatic shotgun is a vital tool in hunting."
All I know is this weekend I will be purchasing the now legal versions of AK-47s and a semi-automatic shotgun. We need these weapons in Texas, because its hard to defend our ranches from those damn Indians who keep attacking us off our land.

 

[CyberSh33p]

yes, the native american has oppressed the white man for centuries, its time we fought back!

 

[FoxDie]

yes, the native american has oppressed the white man for centuries, its time we fought back!

 

[willyd]

yes, the native american has oppressed the white man for centuries, its time we fought back!

"at least you damn indians got casinos." - Chapelle show

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Sounds like there's still some misconceptions over this 'ban' that's now gone... It was against manufacturers and importers... Retailers could continue to sell their stock until it was gone and gun owners didn't have to give up anything they had that was included in the ban...

Used weapons that met the ban guide lines were still bought and sold...

The ban moved main stream sales from respectable retailers in malls and sporting goods stores to gun shows and private sales where little was done to ensure the buyer could legally buy (IE not a convicted felon) This aspect of the Assault weapons ban may well have put more firearms into the hands of criminals then anything in history, but that's just my guess so don't ask for a link.

Purchasing new unbanned fire arms this weekend will be tough... I've been looking into it. It doesn't look like manufacturers started up production of the new stuff until yesterday. Like they were playing it safe incase the ban was extended. So it may be a little while before we see the new stuff back in Stores.

Colts web page is now showing the C model AR-15 again... C stands for Compensator... Stores as far as I can find don't have them in yet. Let me know if anyone has any different information on it. TIA.

 

[falconwind]

I won't say anything about specific gun control systems, since the one up here is a fiasco.

But I will say that the amount of guns don't seem to help the level of gun violence in the US.

Keep in mind that any responsible, God-fearing gun owner has a rather extreme change of heart once he kills his cheating wife and the cops are after them. Similarly, the model NRA member that gets addicted to cocaine and sticks up a bank to pay for his habit has different priorities than gun-safety.

The point is, that any normal good natured person can become a criminal. And the fact that he has a gun at his disposal does not help the situation. A law-abiding citizen hasn't commited a crime... yet.

 

[Hapless]

I won't say anything about specific gun control systems, since the one up here is a fiasco.

But I will say that the amount of guns don't seem to help the level of gun violence in the US.

Keep in mind that any responsible, God-fearing gun owner has a rather extreme change of heart once he kills his cheating wife and the cops are after them. Similarly, the model NRA member that gets addicted to cocaine and sticks up a bank to pay for his habit has different priorities than gun-safety.

The point is, that any normal good natured person can become a criminal. And the fact that he has a gun at his disposal does not help the situation. A law-abiding citizen hasn't commited a crime... yet.

Yes, and the amount of cars owned by Americans doesn't help the level of death and injury from vehicle accidents. Your cocaine analogy is also interesting, in that cocaine is illegal, yet one can get it just about anywhere with little effort, as long as one doesn't look too much like a cop (lol). What makes you think guns will be any easier to control if all guns were banned? We still have a Constitution here, and the government would have a hell of a time violating both the Second and Fourth Amendments without getting in serious legal hot water.

I've seen otherwise law-abiding citizens snap and kill or maim others with knives, bats, crowbars, fire, VEHICLES, etc. Why is a gun any different? Wasn't it in Britain a few years ago that some schmoe walked into a church with a samurai sword and started hacking on people? Ah yes, here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm
(Note that the policeman involved had to use one of the pipes from the church's organ to hold the guy off.)

Would that have somehow been worse if it had been a gun? Have any of you here actually seen a gunshot wound? Have you seen a stab wound or laceration caused by a knife? A guy with a hole in him has a much better chance of surviving than a guy who has been eviscerated with a butcher knife (as happened here a couple weeks ago.)

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Wow lol. How paranoid are you Americans. You need to buy Assault rifles to "defend your homes"? How primitive and backward is it over there? Are there tribes constantly laying siege to your houses and such.

What a weird country!

 

[Hapless]

Wow lol. How paranoid are you Americans. You need to buy Assault rifles to "defend your homes"? How primitive and backward is it over there? Are there tribes constantly laying siege to your houses and such.

What a weird country!

Well, Australia must be extremely civilized if you folks have figured out how to stop all crime, including people breaking into your home in the wee hours. There are numerous stories out there about law-abiding citizens using their lawfully owned firearm to protect themselves, stop a crime in progress, etc.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."

-- Peter Venetoklis

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]

-- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD),

The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.

-- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

-- Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form.

-- Roy Innis, president of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), 1988

 

[Mr-Fusion]

What are you so frightened of? How often does someone break into your home to steal your posessions and threaten your family?

Paranoia rules supreme in the states.

 

[falconwind]

What are you so frightened of? How often does someone break into your home to steal your posessions and threaten your family?

Paranoia rules supreme in the states.

I thought Iron Chef America ruled supreme....

 

[el Chi]

I will agree with you that the UK is better off with it's civilians unarmed.... Can you picture Benny hill trying to shoot? LOL

Dear Sgt_Shellback,
I would like to thank to greatly on providing me with one of the funniest comedy images I've had in my head for a long while. I only wish Benny himself were still alive so we could pitch the idea to the geriatric pervert.
I am currently in talks with the Jane Austen Foundation to try and acquire the liscense to make an all-guns-blazin' production of Pride & Prejudice.
Thank you once again.
Sincerely,
el Chi

 

[el Chi]

Hapless, just because you can quote someone that does not automatically prove your point. A quote, no matter who it's from, does not instantly have worth on the strength of someone notorious having said it. Besides, it's easy to use a quote out of context and twist what they've said.

Two of your quotes are over 200 years old and are in defense of the second amendment which is fine except for the fact that the world has changed so drastically since then. That amendment was as a precaution against the instability within the country at that time. Over 200 years later people interpret it as they like twisting it to your own means.
One of your quotes is from Hitler. Guns = violence. Hitler = violence. I'm not saying all quotes from Hitler are negated of worth instantly because of who said it, but I will take it with less credibility when a person as aggressive as him defends weaponry.



Not that I don't believe you, but if you could please link me to the site where you got that quote from Gandhi, I'd be most interested to see the context in which the father of non-violent revolution said those words.

 

[Sprafa]

The EU would have to stop bickering for them to become a SP... I don't see that happening anytime soon. (Same comment about laziness)

As soon as the USA stops dividing the EU

something like 90% of the EU positions in the UN are centralized.


Really, I remember that the USA constitution allows guns because the "Founding Fathers" wanted to have a Revolution every once in a while. Make their day :burp:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

-- Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942

An interesting array of quotes there, but I really don't think this one is strengthening your argument much. He's probably joking if you ask me.

It basically says:
"It's great that everyone has guns because you're in constant fear of death!"

 

[QUiCKSILV3R]

time 2 update my glock 19 image-> http://www.broadbandreports.com/r0/download/673368~de91b7568881c371a43a7468b757cf77/G19.jpg

 

[OCybrManO]

yes, the native american has oppressed the white man for centuries, its time we fought back!

Maybe we should not have humored them (when they asked to live on reservations). Maybe we should have said, "No, come join us. Be citizens along with the rest of us."

... during a trip to Moscow, when asked about U.S. treatment of Native Americans.

 

[Hapless]

Hapless, just because you can quote someone that does not automatically prove your point. A quote, no matter who it's from, does not instantly have worth on the strength of someone notorious having said it. Besides, it's easy to use a quote out of context and twist what they've said.

Two of your quotes are over 200 years old and are in defense of the second amendment which is fine except for the fact that the world has changed so drastically since then. That amendment was as a precaution against the instability within the country at that time. Over 200 years later people interpret it as they like twisting it to your own means.
One of your quotes is from Hitler. Guns = violence. Hitler = violence. I'm not saying all quotes from Hitler are negated of worth instantly because of who said it, but I will take it with less credibility when a person as aggressive as him defends weaponry.



Not that I don't believe you, but if you could please link me to the site where you got that quote from Gandhi, I'd be most interested to see the context in which the father of non-violent revolution said those words.

Uh, say there, did you happen to READ the Hitler quote? He was not supporting the right of the people to bear arms, he was talking about the dangers of the people bearing arms. Furthermore, how has the world changed drastically in 200 years? Do we not still need the other amendments? Do you honestly think the 2nd was a throwaway amendment to be discarded after things became more "stable." The Founding Fathers considered every one of the Bill of Rights very carefully. This is why the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights, because they believed that the rights covered in them were the most important. Who can disagree? Free Speech, Free Press, Free Assembly, Religious Freedom, Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, the Right to a Speedy Trial.....are any of these more important than the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? What about the 3rd Amendment's safeguard against quartering of soldiers in private homes without the consent of the owner? Is that obsolete? Can we just do away with it? Sure, that hasn't happened in decades, even centuries, but should we give up a right just because things have changed in 200 years? What about "double jeopardy?" Many criminals get acquitted of charges for crimes which they actually committed, so should we do away with this protection so we can keep trying someone until we find a jury who will convict them? How long until THAT gets taken advantage of? Let's say for the sake of argument that everyone decides it's bad to own guns, and there is a super majority that supports repealing the 2nd Amendment, and eventually it gets done. So here we are, no-one but the police and the military have guns. Then a situation arises which causes everyone to want that right again...but the government decides, "Hey, we like the fact that no citizens have guns, we'll leave it as is." This would be particularly distressing if the actions of the government was the reason everyone wanted the 2nd Amendment back. The point is, once you give something like that up, it will be well nigh impossible to get it back.

As a police officer, I have to constantly remind people of the existence of the Bill of Rights, and the fact that if we denied those rights to the neighbor down the street just because, "I just know they're selling drugs down there" or whatever, what's to stop us from denying those rights to anyone? People have, with all seriousness asked and sometimes begged me to kick the neighbors door in right this moment, probable cause be damned. THis attitude usually changes when I ask them if they would think it was fine and dandy if I came and kicked their door in with no warrant or probable cause, just because I thought they might be, oh, I don't know, counterfeiters or child molesters. While some people on this board obviously don't like guns, and think that their very existence is "violence," others may think it's stupid to allow people the freedom to say what they want. Still others might think that it's about time Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Christianity was the official religion of the United States. Once one right is taken away, particularly the one that can most effectively be used to protect the others, where will the "right-taking" stop?

Ghandi actually said that, but he was referring to the British disarmament of the Indian Army. I think it still applies to some extent. Just google the quote, it's all over the place.

 

[ductonius]

An interesting array of quotes there, but I really don't think this one is strengthening your argument much. He's probably joking if you ask me.

It basically says:
"It's great that everyone has guns because you're in constant fear of death!"

If you've read any of Heinlein, you'd know he wasnt joking. Heinlein was very big on personal responsibliity. What he's basically saying in the quote is that people will feel no need to act like jerks becuae the meer existance of weapons will remind them that they can be held ultimatly responsible for doing so.

 

[ferd]

How can an AK in any circumstances become a legal weapon...unbelievable

 

[alehm]

most animal activists are protesting the treatment of animals

Oh I see, the treatment of butchering babies with developed nerve systems must be humane than. I see.
Sanctity of life.. lol.

You might as well take your kids to the zoo buddy.

 

[CptStern]

Oh I see, the treatment of butchering babies with developed nerve systems must be humane than. I see.
Sanctity of life.. lol.

You might as well take your kids to the zoo buddy.

what, pray tell, are you blathering on about?

 

[el Chi]

Uh, say there, did you happen to READ the Hitler quote? He was not supporting the right of the people to bear arms, he was talking about the dangers of the people bearing arms.

I'm sorry, you're absolutely right - I must have been thinking of something completely different when I replied to that. Apologies.

Furthermore, how has the world changed drastically in 200 years? Do we not still need the other amendments? Do you honestly think the 2nd was a throwaway amendment to be discarded after things became more "stable."

I have no problem with the other amendments that make up the bill of rights and besides, they are not under scrutiny here.
Nor am I saying that the Founding Fathers did not consider things carefully.
Here was my point:
The Bill of Rights, if I am not horribly mistaken, was drawn up directly after the Civil War, which took place not too long after the Revolutionary War. A new country - new countries will, by their very nature, be unstable to begin with, especially such a large new country - was being formed out of unease, violence and deep divisions.
This is a potential recipe for disaster and stability was needed. As such, people were given the right to bear arms so that they could form people's militia groups; that way, if a government ever over-stepped the mark or tried to become too powerful the people could rectify this, violently if necessary. It is understandable that they were worried about a monarchical/dictatorial system forming, as that is what they had had for so many years and that is exactly what they had stood against in the Revolutionary War.

However nowadays do you really see that as a possible threat? Some would say that they do and that is why they need high-powered rifles, however they are usually an extreme right-wing minority.
The United States is probably the most powerful nation on the planet and do you really think it could have managed to get there if it was as unstable as it was 200 years ago?

You are defending the amendment because, to you, it symbolises your right as an American citizen to certain various freedoms; fair enough. I am not suggesting to entirely get rid of the amendment, nor am I suggesting that the right to own a gun should be removed from the American people; as much as I disagree with guns, I acknowledge that removing the right to own one would cause huge unrest and probably incite a second Civil War. What I am suggesting is making amendments to the 2nd amendment (and yes, this is possible) to bring it up to date to meet the needs of today's world. It is 200 years old and a little modernity could hardly hurt it.

I simply don't see what practical use a military-grade rifle designed specifically for the purposes of killing other human beings as quickly as possible has in your average citizen's house.
Handguns, shotguns or lower-powered rifles I can see having a practical use for hunting or for personal protection, but I see no reason forthe average person to justifiably own an AK-47.
And I'd like to hear a better reason than "Because we can."

As a policeman could you clarify something for me: Are there laws and restrictions on knives and swords, etc. with regards to, for example, the length of the blade? Thank you.

Please don't compare the right to free speech or the right to choose one's own faith to the right to own a gun. I realise that it's a matter of freedom, but they are not the same.
The right to choose one's religion hurts no-one; the right to free-speech hurts no-one unless it incites hatred, and that is where the law steps in anyway.
The right to own a gun has the explicit potential to end with violence.

Once again:
1. I have no problem with other points in the Bill of Rights. They are not what is under scrutiny here.

2. Whilst I am opposed to guns, I realise that many people consider the right to own a gun as an implicit freedom of being an American citizen. Therefore I am not suggesting, nor did I ever suggest, a complete banning of gun licences.

3. What I propose is an updating of the second amendment. I would add in this that military-grade highly-powered rifles have no practical place in the home.

Just the main points of my argument, really.

Thanks for clarifying the Gandhi quote. Interesting one, that

 

[Hapless]

Ok, short history lesson. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789. The newly formed Congress then passed 12 amendments to the Constitution, which were then sent to the States for ratification. 1n 1791, 10 of the original 12 were ratified and became the law of the land. (Interestingly, one of the two failed amendments was finally ratified in 1992, 202 years after it failed the first time.) These 10 amendments would become known as the Bill of Rights, because all applied to the individual rights of the people. While later amendments would be passed, some regarded Congress' right to pass laws regarding taxes (!), the limiting of Presidential terms, etc. The Civil War took place from 1860-1865. All of the Founding Fathers were dead by that time.

Now then, whether or not any of the other of the first 10 amendments are under scrutiny is of no consequence. I used the others to make points. Your understanding of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment are substantively correct, however misplaced in history One thing you are missing is that each of these amendments was a direct repudiation of the British, and each was a grievance previously held against them when we were a group of colonies.

While a scenario in which the U.S. Government turns against the people is extremely unlikely, one shouldn't assume that it is entirely outside the realm of possibility. Don't forget that Rome began as a democracy, and it took hundreds of years for it to became what amounted to an imperial dictatorship. Most Americans (not just the Michigan Militia types) have an abiding distrust of the government, which can be nothing but healthy for a free society. However, some extreme right wingers let that distrust become full-fledged paranoia, but they are a minority.

Making amendments to the Constitution is something that should never be taken lightly. There are numerous bad things that could happen, which is why many of the most staunch opponents of gay marriage, for instance, oppose a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. And I don't think it is possible to amend an amendment. It is possible to repeal one, but I don't think they can just go in and say, "here's what this should really say." I may be wrong.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is absolutely equal to Freedom of Speech, Religion, etc. And, as YOU pointed out, there are inherent dangers in each of them, even religion. And as you observed, if the Rights are abused the law steps in anyway. Anything has the potential to end in violence. Marriage has the explicit potential to end in violence. Major League Baseball games have the potential to end in violence. Why is violence done with a gun somehow worse than violence done with any other weapon, or even fists? This way of thinking continues to perplex me.

What better reason can there be but, "Because we can." We have that right. That right was guaranteed us in the Constitution. Does there have to be a reason? All firearms are designed to kill. A .22 caliber can kill you just as quickly as the 7.62 MM round from an AK-47. The fact that some are "military-grade," means nothing. In fact, the high powered rifles of the late 18th century owned by the Founders themselves WERE military-grade. Again, incremental restriction of freedom is still a restriction of freedom. If the government starts banning this type of firearm because it's dangerous, and this type of firearm because it LOOKS dangerous, and then this type because some people die when shot with it, it's not difficult to see where this leads. And incremental disarmament is exactly the (in some cases explicitly stated) strategy of gun control groups here in the U.S.

The restriction of knives and swords, etc. falls to the States, and it varies as such. What may be illegal in my State, may be perfectly legal in the next State over. Furthermore, it could even differ between localities within a State.

Lastly, regarding your points, there are some who believe that the mere licensing of firearms owners is an infringement of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I tend to agree, to a point, in that the amendment does not say "...the right of the people, properly licensed, to keep and bear arms..." I know some will say, "Well, people who drive cars are required to be licensed," however the right to drive a vehicle is not guaranteed in the Constitution, anywhere.

 

[Rupertvdb]

i will read all these bits...i can't now though i must go out.

Suffice to say if Bush fails to get some 'proper' ban on your assault rifles then it is his fault. As it is now it seems like a flawed bill expiring. However Bush simply was against its expiration without actually using any of the political pull he has as president to do something about it, that I find dubious, if he cared it could be changed.

 

[OCybrManO]

Fine, they're equal... but that doesn't really help your argument.

There are legal restrictions on all kinds of rights. Libel and slander are illegal. Writing that you are going to kill someone is illegal. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is, in fact, no fire... is illegal. You must be over 18 to excercise your right to vote. If you are found guilty of a felony you forfeit your right to vote (while you are in jail). They're not uncommon.

Restrictions on gun ownership and use are perfectly legal... and necessary. None of the other rights involve things that are designed to kill. Your "right" only extends until it affects the rights of others. All gun owners should have mandatory background checks, gun safety training (including education of the fact that owning a gun for protection is statistically more likely to get you killed), and education on local gun laws before they should be allowed to own a gun... and, if it was up to me, they would need a psychological analysis to see if they are overly prone to anger. Guns require a lot of responsibility. Not everyone is responsible or intelligent enough to own a gun.

 

[Hapless]

Fine, they're equal... but that doesn't really help your argument.

There are legal restrictions on all kinds of rights. Libel and slander are illegal. Writing that you are going to kill someone is illegal. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is, in fact, no fire... is illegal. You must be over 18 to excercise your right to vote. If you are found guilty of a felony you forfeit your right to vote (while you are in jail). They're not uncommon.

Restrictions on gun ownership and use are perfectly legal... and necessary. None of the other rights involve things that are designed to kill. Your "right" only extends until it affects the rights of others. All gun owners should have mandatory background checks, gun safety training (including education of the fact that owning a gun for protection is statistically more likely to get you killed), and education on local gun laws before they should be allowed to own a gun... and, if it was up to me, they would need a psychological analysis to see if they are overly prone to anger. Guns require a lot of responsibility. Not everyone is responsible or intelligent enough to own a gun.

Can you provide me with a link proving this fact? I know your State's concealed carry law has contributed to the decline in violent crime there.......................

Yes, all those things you mention are illegal. Libel and slander are illegal under civil, not criminal law. There is a big difference. In some states, a felony precludes you from EVER voting again. In most, if not all, states, a felony precludes gun ownership. The loss of certain rights after conviction of a felony crime is necessary and proper, as far as I'm concerned. We are talking about law-abiding citizens here anyway. Shooting someone with any gun (without cause) is also illegal. Pointing any gun (without cause) at someone is illegal. Firing any gun in a crowded theater (without cause) is illegal. In some States, even striking someone with the gun itself enhances the penalty. Your point?