Resurrection of the Assault Weapons Ban

[CatoMinor]

No matter how much you may despise guns, that doesn't magically change the wording of the amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[King]

No matter how much you may despise guns, that doesn't magically change the wording of the amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but these aren't guns, these are assault weapons.  Arms at the time of the amendment did haven't semiautomatic capability.  Hell, they took minutes to reload.

If that's all it takes to be a gun, we should just add a fake trigger onto a crackpipe and call it a Cocaine Gun.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

No matter how much you may despise guns, that doesn't magically change the wording of the amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but these aren't guns, these are assault weapons.  Arms at the time of the amendment did haven't semiautomatic capability.  Hell, they took minutes
 to reload.

If that's all it takes to be a gun, we should just add a fake trigger onto a crackpipe and call it a Cocaine Gun.

The second amendment applies to all weapons.

Sweet!!! Another Libertas

[Free Palestine]

No matter how much you may despise guns, that doesn't magically change the wording of the amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but these aren't guns, these are assault weapons.  Arms at the time of the amendment did haven't semiautomatic capability.  Hell, they took minutes to reload.

If that's all it takes to be a gun, we should just add a fake trigger onto a crackpipe and call it a Cocaine Gun.

How cute.  The Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks and muskets. 

Funny, the same people who would criticize my originalism by suggesting the First Amendment only applies to newspapers would embrace such a view.  Just more evidence that a "living constitution" is just a canard for "whatever I want."

The fact is, unless the Constitution is amended, the federal government cannot touch people's guns, regardless of whatever limited sphere the Second Amendment applies to.

[feeblepizza]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^^^^ I think this about covers my position on this issue.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, how is this going to keep guns from Criminals?

[feeblepizza]

No, how is this going to keep guns from Criminals?

I don't know, but if they don't have guns they'll find something else to use. After all, it's the person that kills, not the weapon.

[MasterJedi]

Wouldn't support, no need to, especially with how bad the original bill was anyways.

[Franzl]

No, how is this going to keep guns from Criminals?

I don't know, but if they don't have guns they'll find something else to use. After all, it's the person that kills, not the weapon.

Some weapons certainly make it much easier to kill.

[Free Palestine]

And some cars make it a lot easier to drive drunk.

[Marokai Backbeat]

And some cars make it a lot easier to drive drunk.

...what?


As for the actual question, I'd vote yes, but ideally I'd favor a new collection of sensible gun regulations, as I think the name of the AWB tends to lead to people, like Morgan, focusing more on the name instead of what's actually in it. Which is so often the problem in gun control discussions, because we have a tendency to throw around terms like "fascist!" or "gun ban" instead of talking about the regulations specifically and the pros and cons of them.

[feeblepizza]

And some cars make it a lot easier to drive drunk.

...what?

[courts]

Option 2.

[Napoleon]

I would vote in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban. Assault Weapons are clearly crafted for an offensive attack whereas the only purpose to bear arms under the 2nd amendment is for the self-defense of an individual, something a simple handgun can adequately accomplish.

LOL

I take it that you never heard the aphorism "The best defense is a good offense."

In any case, the AWB as it was constituted was a very silly piece of gun control legislation.  About the only feature of it that made any sort of rational sense were the limits on magazine size.

I fail to see how that phrase is a viable analogy to counter my point. It's actually entirely irrelevant.

[Franzl]

And some cars make it a lot easier to drive drunk.

Grow a brain please.

[hawkeye59]

Actually, both sides are wrong.
Guns don't kill people, and neither do people.
BULLETS kill people


Seriously, I believe that a person can easily defend themselves with a shotgun. Why does anyone need an assault weapon to defend themselves? Why do people even need a handgun?

[dead0man]

Actually, both sides are wrong.
Guns don't kill people, and neither do people.
BULLETS kill people

Actually it's the massive blood loss and trauma that kills people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People don't need to hear racists and morons rant, but they have that right.  People don't need to hear Glenn Beck or Ariana Huffington, but thankfully we have freedom of the press.  People don't need to worship flying spaghetti monsters, but we have that freedom.  Just because we don't understand why some other individual would need something or not doesn't mean it should be banned.