Assault Weapons Ban 386
An anonymous reader writes "With all the Constitutional arguments that appear on /., perhaps some readers might be interested in this BBC Article about the expiration of the Clinton assault weapons ban. Both presidential candidates have spoken in favor of it, but no one is willing to vote to keep it."
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war! (Score:5, Interesting)
-- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States, in his address to 2nd Session of 1st Congress.
"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."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States.
nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip
I personally do not own weapons, don't want to. But I feel a little better knowing that there are those paranoid bastards out in the woods packing fully automatic weapons waiting for the government to get "really evil".
I personally feel as though murder should be decriminalized. Think about how much crime would be reduced and law enforcement's job would be made so much easier.
Now let the flame wars begin...
Not yet. 1st, it is not normal to want to kill someone. Aside from a psychopath that cannot feel empathy or guilt, It is against any human's natural will to kill someone. Its instinct to grab someone who steps out into the road, its not because we were taught this. It goes against instinct to go against self and species preservation.
By legalizing murder, it would keep people in check. Basic reinforcement theory says that learing takes place when the reinforcer (reward or punishment) is near the action. If Johnny kills Billy, and Billy's friends or family think that it was wrong for Johnny to kill Billy. Well, Johnny better watch his back!
I personally feel as though the incidence of murder would actually decrease if it were legal. Just a theory.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war! (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree, but...
What happens when Bill Gates buys a million tanks and sends them all at Linux users?
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war! (Score:2, Interesting)
But in the end, although people who get all worked up over this ban are fools, there are certainly factions that benefit from everyone being worked up. The NRA, of course, because it boosts their membership. The gun manufactuers, because they sell more guns.
But most of all, President Bush is the biggest beneficiary. Look at some of the states where the race is considered close--Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan. Places in which the last four years (or longer) have been economic hell. How could these masochists possibly consider voting for Bush?
There's something you gotta understand about guns. Sure, if you take a poll, most people want to get rid of assault weapons, and probably handguns while your at it. But the side of the country that wants to keep these guns DOESN'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. Guns are the archetypal single issue voter--completely unlike abortion which has an equal number of single-issue voters on both sides. NO ONE will vote for Kerry just because he opposes assault weapons. And, yes, Bush claims to support the ban, but obviously if he wanted to he could convince Senator Frist to force the issue in the Senate.
So all Bush has to do is make 20% of the country rich by making the other 80% poor, get 31% worked up into a lather over God, guns, and gays, and BANG, Bush has got himself a majority, and a mandate to continue his grand neoconservative experiment.
I suggest to Democrats that you just drop this issue--you'll save far more lives if Kerry can implement his health care reforms than the scant number saved by banning these ridiculous toys.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war! (Score:5, Interesting)
That's absurd. The Constitution was written in a time when nuclear bombs didn't *exist*. The game thory associated with the weapons of the times -- soldiers have rifles, citizens have rifles -- made guns a moderating influence. The game factors associated with nuclear bombs is *wildly* different from that associated with guns.
This is exactly the sort of thing reason that the judicial branch is allowed to interpret the Constitution -- to deal with technological advances.
For example, if the military gets the ability to run around with autonomous sniping helicopters and that becomes the main method of exerting military force, then civilians need to be able to have Stingers. That maintains the same balance as was present in the Constitution's authoring period.
Personally, I think civilians owning guns is not permitted by the constitution, and that militia means a state army. But I do think this is an area where compromises can be reached.
It's not a matter of compromise -- it can be *amended* if it's necessary to mean this. Please at least read and consider this [neusysinc.com] -- the framers very clearly referred to an armed citizenry.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war! (Score:4, Interesting)
The constitution is quite clear- well ordered militias are allowed arms. Well-ordered means regulated, militias are strate armys. So each of the 50 states can have their own army, if they wish, and arm them. The stuff people spout about it being so people can revolt is pure bull, its a moddern idea espoused by a few far right nutjobs in the past century. There is no constitutional right to citizens having guns, so what they can have is pure comprimise.
I'm actually not in favo of getting rid of itizens guns entirely. But stopping fellons from getting them easily, requiring registration, making resell illegal (unless reregistering), and limiting the amount of damage a gun can do before reloading are all decent comprimises.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war! (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, we have a standing army these days. This point is moot. Besides which, state militias would also qualify under this statement.
I'll include another link from the site. Sure that's what they meant?
The only one quoted in that link who was in the congress writing the constitution was Madison. The others didn't write it, so they can't know what it was supposed to mean.
Read the constitution. Whenever it means a person, it says "a person" or "no person". When it means a citizen it says "a citizen" or "a citizen of these United States". So why does it say militia in the text of the second ammendment? Because they meant militias- the second ammendment was meant to be a right for the states, allowing them to have an army. If they meant any citizen could have a gun, they would have used the term person or citizen, not "well-ordered militia"
A *modern* idea? How do you explain the Revolutionary War? The writings of our Founding Fathers?
None of the foundign fathers claimed guns were important so people could revolt. There's a quote often attributed to Washington that floats around, but its been discredited.
As for felons (people who have been convicted of a felony -- let's not try to isolate ourselves from them so that we can mistreat them without feeling bad about it) -- I could see limiting gun access to felons that have committed a felony using a *gun*. But how does it benefit anyone to have, say, an embezzler denied gun rights?
Heck, I'm still amazed that in most states, people in jail for committing a felony are denied *sufferage*. That's astounding (and a major coup for the Republican party -- drug crimes have eliminated much of the black vote).
I agree on the sufferage thing, its ridculous. But as for embezzlers- an embezzler has already proved he's a thief. People who commit one crime frequently commit others. Its risk mitigation- he's more likely to move onto another crime, possibly ciolent, than the average person. Especially since he'll likely become desperate- its very hard for an ex-con to get a job, who would trust a known embezzler?