Left/Center-Left/Center-Right/Right

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I wish it had more economic issues, but eh.

Abortion -- right
Affirmative Action -- right
Artwork Funding -- center-right
Assault Weapons Ban -- left
Campaign Finance Reform -- neutral
Capital Punishment -- center-right
Concealed Carry -- neutral
D.C. Statehood -- center-left
Defense Funding -- center-left
Environment -- neutral
Euthanasia -- left
Faith Based Initiatives -- left
Farm Subsidies -- right
Flag Burning Amendment -- left
Gay Adoption -- left
Gay Marriage -- left
Medicare/Medicaid -- center-left
Minimum Wage -- center-right
School Vouchers -- center-right
Racial Profiling -- center-right
United Nations -- center-right
War on Iraq -- neutral

[Associate Justice PiT]

Assault Weapons Ban -- left

Why?

     Because assualt weapons have no place in a modern civilization. Handguns are necessary for self-defense. Assualt weapons might have a point if you were to be attacked by squads of say, 20-30 people.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Assault Weapons Ban -- left

Why?

     Because assualt weapons have no place in a modern civilization. Handguns are necessary for self-defense. Assualt weapons might have a point if you were to be attacked by squads of say, 20-30 people.

'Assault weapons' are just guns that look like military weapons. But that doesn't make them anymore dangerous. The semi-automatic versions of military assault rifles actually smaller calibers and less-powerful ammunition than many legal hunting rifles.

     I don't support hunting rifles being legal either. In the spirit of the second amendment, I think that guns should be legal solely for the purpose of self-defense. A hunting rifle is overkill for that purpose, so I don't see there being a reason that it should be legal.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Assault Weapons Ban -- left

Why?

     Because assualt weapons have no place in a modern civilization. Handguns are necessary for self-defense. Assualt weapons might have a point if you were to be attacked by squads of say, 20-30 people.

I like to think I'm something of an expert when it comes to firearms and their respective laws. Allow me to impart some of my knowledge.

The term "assault rifle" has a technical definition. I believe it is the Army which says assault rifles are selective fire (meaning they can shoot semi or full auto) and utilize an intermediate cartridge. (which is basically a round that is a rung below what those belt fed medium machine guns and battle rifles use.

The term "assault weapon" has no technical definition. What makes a rifle an assault weapon is not how it functions, but certain cosmetic features that appear on it. I think it was the head of the Violence Policy Center, back in the '80s, who said that anything that looks like a machine gun will be assumed to be a machine gun by the public. They came up with the term "assault weapon" to try to link the semi-auto only rifles with their fully automatic military cousins.

The ban on assault weapons has nothing to do with machine guns. Those are regulated by a completely different law, the National Firearms Act of 1934. The phrase "assault weapons" is quite inflammatory and conjures up images of AK-47s and M16s blasting people away. I guess that's what it's supposed to do. Assault weapons look exactly like fully automatic firearms, but that's it.

     Thank you for the information. I guess my position would be closer to center-left in that case.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't support hunting rifles being legal either. In the spirit of the second amendment, I think that guns should be legal solely for the purpose of self-defense. A hunting rifle is overkill for that purpose, so I don't see there being a reason that it should be legal.

But why?  It's not like Joe Blow Gangbanger is using his 30.06 or Barret .50cal to rob the local Target.  A hunting rifle, no matter how powerful makes for a really sh**tty weapon of crime.  Even the Aussies and Brits understand that.  Ignorance of something is no reason to want to ban it.  That's how we got into the stupid war on drugs.

     Of course, if it's not a weapon that you would want to use for self-defense or to commit a crime, you shouldn't really be upset if I take it away. You have to understand that since I've lived in big cities my whole life, I approach issues from a blind urban perspective.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Wow, I'm amazed by how much more authoritarian I was only two years ago. Doing it again:

Abortion -- left
Affirmative Action -- right
Artwork Funding -- right
Assault Weapons Ban -- right
Campaign Finance Reform -- center-right
Capital Punishment -- left
Concealed Carry -- right
D.C. Statehood -- left
Defense Funding -- left
Environment -- center-right
Euthanasia -- left
Faith Based Initiatives -- center-left
Farm Subsidies -- right
Flag Burning Amendment -- left
Gay Adoption -- left
Gay Marriage -- left
Medicare/Medicaid -- center-right
Minimum Wage -- center-right
School Vouchers -- right
Racial Profiling -- center-right
United Nations -- right
War on Iraq -- left

[Associate Justice PiT]

Wow, I'm amazed by how much more authoritarian I was only two years ago. Doing it again:

Racial Profiling -- center-right

And you still are....

     Yeah, coppers being racist isn't going to stop because anyone tells them to. If we want to solve problems like that, the racist dialectic of race needs to be given cement overshoes & thrown in the Hudson, so to speak.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yeah, abortion is difficult for me to classify. I am in favor of unrestricted access to abortion, but oppose government funding of abortion clinics.