Slog
News & ArtsFriday, July 20, 2012
Crime Expired Gun Ban Would Have Covered Rifle Used in Theater Shooting
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:13 PM
One of the principal weapons used by James Eagan Holmes in the horrific Dark Knight Rises shooting would have been subject to a series of sharp restrictions under the now-expired federal Assault Weapons ban. The AR-15 rife carried by Holmes, a civilian semi-automatic version of the military M-16, would have been defined as a “semiautomatic assault weapon” under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. If the law was still in force, semiautomatic assault weapons would have been outright banned.
Someone tell me the benefits of letting that ban expire, please. Because I have a list of reasons why it shouldn't have expired.
1
"Someone tell me the benefits of letting that ban expire, please."
Mostly because it was a "ban" on cosmetic features. From your Wikipedia link (formatting changed by me):
"... barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms, classified as "assault weapons" (a non-technical term),
as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun
that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine,
and which has two or more of the following features:
A telescoping or folding stock,
a pistol grip,
a flash suppressor,
a grenade launcher, and
a bayonet lug."
Mostly because it was a "ban" on cosmetic features. From your Wikipedia link (formatting changed by me):
"... barred the manufacture of 19 specific semi-automatic firearms, classified as "assault weapons" (a non-technical term),
as well as any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun
that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine,
and which has two or more of the following features:
A telescoping or folding stock,
a pistol grip,
a flash suppressor,
a grenade launcher, and
a bayonet lug."
2
Hm. The benefit of letting the ban expire?
I guess the benefit is that it removed a law that was in direct violation of the second amendment of the constitution.
So, if following the constitution is a benefit, than letting the ban expire is a benefit.
I guess the benefit is that it removed a law that was in direct violation of the second amendment of the constitution.
So, if following the constitution is a benefit, than letting the ban expire is a benefit.
3
I should really avoid Slog on days like this. I like reading your contributions here Paul, but these posts are hyperventilating with the same depth the conservatives draw each time a Planned Parenthood worker says the wrong thing.
If it's simply an "I told you so" you want them to read, maybe everyone just needs to take a breather.
If it's simply an "I told you so" you want them to read, maybe everyone just needs to take a breather.
4
Because I, like so many others, am not-trolling today, I'll express an earnest interest in doing functional-MRI studies (and possibly phallometry of a range of people on the gun-interest spectrum ("yeahyeahyeahyeah," "meh," and "get that fuckin' thing away from me" types).
Wire 'em up, stick an automatic weapon in their hands, hit record, and tell them when and what to shoot on the video screen. Analyze-analyze-analyze and publish-publish-publish.
Wire 'em up, stick an automatic weapon in their hands, hit record, and tell them when and what to shoot on the video screen. Analyze-analyze-analyze and publish-publish-publish.
5
Just a heads-up: the manufacturer wasn't specified in any article I could find, and "AR-15" is a general term for a type of weapon. The Assault Weapons Ban specifically banned the "Colt AR-15."
Even if made by a different manufacturer, it still may have fallen under the ban if it had two or more of the following features:
- Folding/telescoping stock
- Pistol grip (it almost certainly had this)
- Bayonet lug
- Flash suppressor
- Grenade launcher
So we really don't have the information needed to know it would have been banned or not.
Even if made by a different manufacturer, it still may have fallen under the ban if it had two or more of the following features:
- Folding/telescoping stock
- Pistol grip (it almost certainly had this)
- Bayonet lug
- Flash suppressor
- Grenade launcher
So we really don't have the information needed to know it would have been banned or not.
8
So this ban would have MAYBE gotten one of the four guns he had on his person more difficult to obtain. How useful
9
@3 Find me the last time someone's partial birth abortion killed 12 people in a movie theater and you might have an argument, sweetie.
10
I think letting the ban expire allows for larger clips or magazine cartridges?
Its amazing the stupidity from some people who honestly think that if more people in the theater were armed, this somehow would have not happened, or fewer people would have been harmed. It doesnt take more than a minute to realize the holes in that logic and it makes me want to hurl a brick through the window of the local NRA office. Obviously im not going to do that, but it enrages me to see so many people defend this nutballs right to own assault weapons that so far are being used for either war or mass murder.
Its amazing the stupidity from some people who honestly think that if more people in the theater were armed, this somehow would have not happened, or fewer people would have been harmed. It doesnt take more than a minute to realize the holes in that logic and it makes me want to hurl a brick through the window of the local NRA office. Obviously im not going to do that, but it enrages me to see so many people defend this nutballs right to own assault weapons that so far are being used for either war or mass murder.
11
This is an incredibly ignorant post. a.) To assume he wouldn't have been able to get his hands on this gun if it had been banned is ridiculous. Drugs are illegal, but I sure as hell know how to get my hands on them. b.) He had the intent to inflict carnage. He would've used a weapon that was or wasn't legal seeing as he went so far as to rig his apartment to be a massive bomb. He was a violent person and would've been devastatingly violent no matter what the laws were.
12
@10: it sort of did. If the larger-capacity magazines were manufactured prior to the ban, they could still be sold. So it made them more expensive, but by no means unavailable.
Same goes for firearms covered under the "ban," by the way. If they were manufactured prior to the ban going into place, they were available for sale or transfer.
Same goes for firearms covered under the "ban," by the way. If they were manufactured prior to the ban going into place, they were available for sale or transfer.
13
"You can shove your constitution up your ass. "
BUT BUT PATRIOT ACT!!!! *froths about Constitution*
BUT BUT PATRIOT ACT!!!! *froths about Constitution*
14
Oh and letting it expire just means new guns cant be sold, people can still sell their existing guns to anyone they want.
The gun show loophole allows anyone to sell whatever firearms they want without a license or background check because as long as the sale of guns dont exceed 51% of their normal income, then you are good to go. So if you make 50k a year selling donuts, and 49k selling guns, then its ok. This is done so that private gun owners can sell their guns without having to get a federal license. And I think most people are just the casual owners who just have too many guns and not enough room in the safe, but according to my dad (retired ATF inspector), alot of people can just lie about their primary income. Theres almost no money to enforce these laws and even though alot of gun supporters stress that we should enforce existing laws, almost none of them want more money going to the ATF to do this.
The gun show loophole allows anyone to sell whatever firearms they want without a license or background check because as long as the sale of guns dont exceed 51% of their normal income, then you are good to go. So if you make 50k a year selling donuts, and 49k selling guns, then its ok. This is done so that private gun owners can sell their guns without having to get a federal license. And I think most people are just the casual owners who just have too many guns and not enough room in the safe, but according to my dad (retired ATF inspector), alot of people can just lie about their primary income. Theres almost no money to enforce these laws and even though alot of gun supporters stress that we should enforce existing laws, almost none of them want more money going to the ATF to do this.
16
If some lunatic wants a gun, he can always get one. The guy clearly wasn't bothered by laws against shooting people, so why would he bothered by a law against owning an automatic weapon? In theory, the law would have made it harder for him to get that kind of a gun, but would that have stopped him? Would he instead have built a pipe bomb? Who the hell knows?
17
@9 - I could give a fuck if they performed 3rd trimester abortions at Walgreens, and I've personally got no need for guns— I was addressing the tone of the post (and others on this topic) and the excitement that such a hot tragedy in the news can be a springboard to vent someone's world view. It's as predictable as "was he wearing a helmet?!"
18
@14: Just to be clear - if you're a registered firearms dealer and you exploit the "gun show loophole," you'd better lube up for the ATF.
The rest of it, yeah - it'd be great if someone could come up with legislation that closes the loophole, while still allowing someone to sell a hunting rifle to their friend. Legally, there's no distinction between the two, and it gets hard to define terms that make it work.
The rest of it, yeah - it'd be great if someone could come up with legislation that closes the loophole, while still allowing someone to sell a hunting rifle to their friend. Legally, there's no distinction between the two, and it gets hard to define terms that make it work.
19
Here's all I know: Guns are here to stay. With 50 million people legally owning 200 million guns, legal guns are not going anywhere. With open borders and easy access to illegal weapons in even the most restrictive states, illegal guns aren't going anywhere either. We can continue to hold circular and ineffective arguments about how "Guns are good\Guns are bad", or we can try to come up with practical ways to lessen gun violence. Stricter controls on who can own guns - any felony or violent misdemeanor, or any time spent with involuntary stays in mental facilities, country-wide and reasonable gun laws and electronic registration of guns, and mandatory training sessions before permits are given. As a gun owner I'm entirely willing to discuss those options as attempts to limit gun violence. But I'm tired of and done with reading postings about the evils of guns, and I'm likewise tired of discussions about how guns save lives. Sometimes good people get killed. Sometimes bad people get stopped. But the guns? They aren't going anywhere, and we all know it.
20
@2 the second amendment argument fails. we ban nuclear weapons, you can't own one, it is an "arm" how come your second amendment argument doesn't apply there? same for grenades, tanks, bazookas. they be arms dude, handy for opposing tyrannical gummint right?
fact is, other nations with all kinds of gun control only have about 1/100th the rate of crazy shooters we got. bbecuase guns kill. don't say they don't, that is silly!
MANY nations have laws that include totally tight ass gun control and while once in a while there's a shooting or a crazy massacre, it's not like here where it happens basically every three months or so.
fact is, other nations with all kinds of gun control only have about 1/100th the rate of crazy shooters we got. bbecuase guns kill. don't say they don't, that is silly!
MANY nations have laws that include totally tight ass gun control and while once in a while there's a shooting or a crazy massacre, it's not like here where it happens basically every three months or so.
21
This guy was a science genius and rigged his apartment to blow...no guns involved.
Who is to know that given no other means he might have blown the whole cineplex!
Who is to know that given no other means he might have blown the whole cineplex!
22
@18
Of course the ATF will come down on you, thats your only job, your primary income, you have no choice but to register and get a license to deal guns, but they just dont have the money to enforce this. So the law continues to be exploited because the gun shows move from location to location.
Of course the ATF will come down on you, thats your only job, your primary income, you have no choice but to register and get a license to deal guns, but they just dont have the money to enforce this. So the law continues to be exploited because the gun shows move from location to location.
24
@16 Every time I see one of these arguments about gun regulation not working, it just does not make sense. The AR-15 is relatively easy to convert back to full auto with a bit of gunsmithing, yet you almost never hear of these shooting sprees being done with modified AR/AK platforms.
Conclusion? Gun regulation works over the longer period of time to a great extent. Yes, it may take 20 years of regulation to reset the culture but will still have an effect.
Conclusion? Gun regulation works over the longer period of time to a great extent. Yes, it may take 20 years of regulation to reset the culture but will still have an effect.
25
@20 has a good point in case you have anonymous comments turned off.
Still, I'm torn between that sentiment and a quote someone else posted earlier this morning: "It's WAY too late for gun control in America" - Steve Earle
Still, I'm torn between that sentiment and a quote someone else posted earlier this morning: "It's WAY too late for gun control in America" - Steve Earle
26
Reposting @20's comment so the cowardly gun-fuckers on this thread have to read it. Choke on it, assholes.
"@2 the second amendment argument fails. we ban nuclear weapons, you can't own one, it is an "arm" how come your second amendment argument doesn't apply there? same for grenades, tanks, bazookas. they be arms dude, handy for opposing tyrannical gummint right?
fact is, other nations with all kinds of gun control only have about 1/100th the rate of crazy shooters we got. bbecuase guns kill. don't say they don't, that is silly!
MANY nations have laws that include totally tight ass gun control and while once in a while there's a shooting or a crazy massacre, it's not like here where it happens basically every three months or so.
Posted by guns kill crazily on July 20, 2012 at 2:04 PM "
"@2 the second amendment argument fails. we ban nuclear weapons, you can't own one, it is an "arm" how come your second amendment argument doesn't apply there? same for grenades, tanks, bazookas. they be arms dude, handy for opposing tyrannical gummint right?
fact is, other nations with all kinds of gun control only have about 1/100th the rate of crazy shooters we got. bbecuase guns kill. don't say they don't, that is silly!
MANY nations have laws that include totally tight ass gun control and while once in a while there's a shooting or a crazy massacre, it's not like here where it happens basically every three months or so.
Posted by guns kill crazily on July 20, 2012 at 2:04 PM "
27
21 - PhD candidates in neuroscience are a dime-a-dozen these days. No need to assume he was a "science genius." He's just crazy.
28
Gun nuts keep working around vague legal language anyway. c.f. the "Bullet Button" added to rifles sold in California.
29
Glad 20 said it and 26 reposted it. I've said it before and I'll say it again. EVERYONE agrees that it is 100% sensible to "infringe" the "right to bear arms". Nobody's out there saying we should be allowed to have tanks and stinger missiles. Nobody's out there saying mentally insane gang members should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons. EVERYONE agrees that your "right to bear arms" SHALL be "infringed" and SHOULD be "infringed". It's just a question of how far we should go in our infringing.
30
You can't rig a movie theater! What are you going to do? Sneak in between showings and lay out trip wires? Come on.
And you can't take back the 200 million legal guns @19 mentions... but you could theoretically make it very hard, if not impossible, to buy the bullets that feed them. And that may not infringe on the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" (because a "well regulated militia" is necessary, or something, in case the British return). You could mandate, perhaps, that an active hunting license be required to buy bullets, for example, and restrict bullet sales to certain locations and in certain amounts. This would be the Chris Rock, control-by-attrition approach to gun control.
A pipe dream? For sure, but there it is.
And you can't take back the 200 million legal guns @19 mentions... but you could theoretically make it very hard, if not impossible, to buy the bullets that feed them. And that may not infringe on the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" (because a "well regulated militia" is necessary, or something, in case the British return). You could mandate, perhaps, that an active hunting license be required to buy bullets, for example, and restrict bullet sales to certain locations and in certain amounts. This would be the Chris Rock, control-by-attrition approach to gun control.
A pipe dream? For sure, but there it is.
31
@25
from @20 -- yes, it's late, but the longer we wait the harder it will get and unless you want this city and all cities in america to look like juarez mexico, we need us some damn tight gun control. it starts with refuting the gun lovers and their allies with their nonsense that guns don't kill, bans don't work, the second amendment doesn't let you, blah blah blah, whatabour BEARS one said this morning BEARS kill too you gonna ban BEARS!
it's all just nonsense. all nations with far higher safety rates have humongous gun controls including bans on certain classes of weapons combined with super tight registration in the nations that allow lots of guns (switzerland). yes, we can ban an entire class of weapons; we ban nukes, and texas banned handguns in the 1800's despite having a clear individual "right to bear arms." NOT ONE court has said "that means ALL arms." The practical and legal arguments are just nonsensical baloney. Not one of us really believes that if you walk around downtown...Frankfurt, GErmany.... you have the same fear level you have here at 23d and cherry or that in norway the rate of crazy people engaging in massacres is anything like the rate in colorado. it's just true, gun controls work, where they are in place. sure we're about 250 million guns behind. but we gotta do it or else this nation will look like juarez. deal.
from @20 -- yes, it's late, but the longer we wait the harder it will get and unless you want this city and all cities in america to look like juarez mexico, we need us some damn tight gun control. it starts with refuting the gun lovers and their allies with their nonsense that guns don't kill, bans don't work, the second amendment doesn't let you, blah blah blah, whatabour BEARS one said this morning BEARS kill too you gonna ban BEARS!
it's all just nonsense. all nations with far higher safety rates have humongous gun controls including bans on certain classes of weapons combined with super tight registration in the nations that allow lots of guns (switzerland). yes, we can ban an entire class of weapons; we ban nukes, and texas banned handguns in the 1800's despite having a clear individual "right to bear arms." NOT ONE court has said "that means ALL arms." The practical and legal arguments are just nonsensical baloney. Not one of us really believes that if you walk around downtown...Frankfurt, GErmany.... you have the same fear level you have here at 23d and cherry or that in norway the rate of crazy people engaging in massacres is anything like the rate in colorado. it's just true, gun controls work, where they are in place. sure we're about 250 million guns behind. but we gotta do it or else this nation will look like juarez. deal.
32
@26: what "cowardly gun-fuckers" are you referring to? I don't really see anyone that's actively participating in this thread being all that unreasonable.
With regard to the 2nd Amendment issue, the Supreme Court has held that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
I'm not entirely certain that I agree with that, but I still have to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has considerable sway over how laws need to be implemented.
With regard to the 2nd Amendment issue, the Supreme Court has held that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
I'm not entirely certain that I agree with that, but I still have to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has considerable sway over how laws need to be implemented.
33
@31 I don't disagree. In fact, I completely agree but I have an incredibly difficult time imagining a majority of the country getting behind stricter gun control in my lifetime.
34
@20,
Actually, people can own grenades, tanks, and bazookas. Yes, really.
Use the google and look it up, you'll find lots of interesting things (and yes, you'll find them in reputable sources).
I don't know about uranium or plutonium, but if the people who run nuclear reactors can get it, then I don't see why anyone else can't, albeit with incredible difficulty.
Most people don't own those things though, because they're very difficult to get and the ATF practically puts a guy in your house watching you 24/7 if you do own them.
But that doesn't really matter. Your main point was that control of guns prevents their use in crimes, right? So then nations with even less gun control than the U.S. should be hotbeds of gun rampage, right? Are they?
I was simply answering Paul's question: What is the benefit of letting the ban expire? Can you dispute that benefit?
Look, I'm not a big gun fan, but there is so much hypocrisy among those who want to ban guns that it really turns me off to their side. They are like a bunch of whining babies who are so set in their conviction that the only solution is to ban guns, that they refuse to even consider alternatives... or even consider what the real problem is. Is easy access to guns really the problem here? Doesn't anyone even care to ask why the hell do we have so many people who are willing to commit these terrible crimes? Guns or no guns, the fact that those people exist, and apparently exist in higher numbers here than in any other country, says something really terrifying about us. Who gives a shit how they do it... I'm more concerned about figuring out why they do it.
Actually, people can own grenades, tanks, and bazookas. Yes, really.
Use the google and look it up, you'll find lots of interesting things (and yes, you'll find them in reputable sources).
I don't know about uranium or plutonium, but if the people who run nuclear reactors can get it, then I don't see why anyone else can't, albeit with incredible difficulty.
Most people don't own those things though, because they're very difficult to get and the ATF practically puts a guy in your house watching you 24/7 if you do own them.
But that doesn't really matter. Your main point was that control of guns prevents their use in crimes, right? So then nations with even less gun control than the U.S. should be hotbeds of gun rampage, right? Are they?
I was simply answering Paul's question: What is the benefit of letting the ban expire? Can you dispute that benefit?
Look, I'm not a big gun fan, but there is so much hypocrisy among those who want to ban guns that it really turns me off to their side. They are like a bunch of whining babies who are so set in their conviction that the only solution is to ban guns, that they refuse to even consider alternatives... or even consider what the real problem is. Is easy access to guns really the problem here? Doesn't anyone even care to ask why the hell do we have so many people who are willing to commit these terrible crimes? Guns or no guns, the fact that those people exist, and apparently exist in higher numbers here than in any other country, says something really terrifying about us. Who gives a shit how they do it... I'm more concerned about figuring out why they do it.
35
There is no argument against banning assault rifles that cannot also be applied to 50 caliber machine guns. And yet, everyone seems to agree that banning those weapons is ok.
36
@35: Define "banned." .50 caliber machine guns aren't banned, strictly speaking. If you live in a state that allows automatic weapons at all (WA is not one of them), then (with a federal tax stamp) you can legally purchase one for a huge amount of money. Also, it must have been manufactured prior to 1986.
37
@34: Ownership or acquisition of "Destructive Devices", as defined under the National Firearms Act, requires approval of the Attorney General and any owners must register with the Federal government.
And in United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for the Federal government to criminalize ownership of certain firearms.
And in United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for the Federal government to criminalize ownership of certain firearms.
38
That rifle ban didn't stop jack. For AR/AK style weapons, manufacturers just switched to a "sporter" stock instead of a pistol-grip handle and those were legal, despite being completely functionally identical to the banned weapons.
Lone gunmen who plan ahead will never be stopped by better gun control laws. Pervasive street crime accelerated by ready supplies of cheap guns? Yeah, maybe we can help that situation somewhat.
Lone gunmen who plan ahead will never be stopped by better gun control laws. Pervasive street crime accelerated by ready supplies of cheap guns? Yeah, maybe we can help that situation somewhat.
39
@ 16, sure you can get illegal guns, even (semi-) automatic here in the netherlands. yet the only "kid on a rampage" massacre here was done with legal fire arms, illegal fire arms are expensive and are owned by criminals, maybe a civi can score a .22 or 9mm in a dodgy pub but anything with a serious bang demands serious money and serious criminal conections, unless your in mexico serious criminals don't shoot up cinama complexes in general.
That one "kid on a rampage" massacre could have been prevented if the kids guns(permit) was seized when he was involuntarily mental-hospitalized and at least a lot less deadly if he only had his handgun and not a semi-automatic rifle. The combination of those two rules would make a very rare incident ever rarer. I'm all for gun possession, but with that right should come responsibilities; licensing, mental-health checks, max 10 round clips, regular checks and heavy consequences for people who don't keep their guns propperly locked up I a safe, semi and automatic possession under even tighter control, etc etc.
Weapon possesion is not the problem, the mindset of plenty of the US weapons owners who think they are either cowboys in a cowboy movie, gangbangers in a gangstarap video or paranoid schizophreniacs on a holy mission to fight the black UN-alien-jew choppers that are coming to abort their babies, in combination with cheap uncontrolled access to heavy weaponry is.
That one "kid on a rampage" massacre could have been prevented if the kids guns(permit) was seized when he was involuntarily mental-hospitalized and at least a lot less deadly if he only had his handgun and not a semi-automatic rifle. The combination of those two rules would make a very rare incident ever rarer. I'm all for gun possession, but with that right should come responsibilities; licensing, mental-health checks, max 10 round clips, regular checks and heavy consequences for people who don't keep their guns propperly locked up I a safe, semi and automatic possession under even tighter control, etc etc.
Weapon possesion is not the problem, the mindset of plenty of the US weapons owners who think they are either cowboys in a cowboy movie, gangbangers in a gangstarap video or paranoid schizophreniacs on a holy mission to fight the black UN-alien-jew choppers that are coming to abort their babies, in combination with cheap uncontrolled access to heavy weaponry is.
40
The 94 AWB did nothing for the ones that were already owned. Just FYI for the dumbass that wrote the story. Secondly, I have 4 of them, who wants to be the douchebag that comes and gets them?
41
The AWB sucked. I ended up paying $1500 for my Hungarian AK-47.
England's a short planes ride away for Fnarf and the other bum boys who don't like living in a free society.
England's a short planes ride away for Fnarf and the other bum boys who don't like living in a free society.
42
He is a terrorist
My boyfriend refuses to see this movie. We bought tix more then a month ago.
Not only did he massacre and mame a multitude of innocents, he scared people enough to redirect their course of their daily lives.
We label those with a different shade of beautiful and those whom do not share our "Judeo-christian" beliefs.
This man wasn't just a nut case. He is a terrorist.
My boyfriend refuses to see this movie. We bought tix more then a month ago.
Not only did he massacre and mame a multitude of innocents, he scared people enough to redirect their course of their daily lives.
We label those with a different shade of beautiful and those whom do not share our "Judeo-christian" beliefs.
This man wasn't just a nut case. He is a terrorist.
43
@34 et al.
the cowardice is refusing to see facts and the illogic of your own position.
fact: nation with gun controls, limits and rules are safer, have less street crime, and fewer massacres. hello, denmark does not have one massacre a year, we got twenty in the usa, and hello, delft holland does not have 20 murders a year while aurora colo does, and hello, you can't walk the streets of nyc most of it at night feeling safe, but you can in canberra, sydney oslo paris etc. don't tell me europe's gun laws don't work. it's far fucking less violent there and it's cowardly of you to obscure this fact/deny reality/nitpick details, etc.
second, your second amendment arguments fail and are tautological. if we can't ban rifles, we can't ban nuclear weapons, they are also arms. same for tanks and grenades and screw you, it is not legal to possess tanks, grenades, nuclear weapons etc. are you fucking crazy and are you really saying it's legal or should be legal? this is cowardly retreat into rhetorical nit picking. because no you do not advocate for freedom to possess "arms" like the second amendment says, you are not in favor of 200 million nuclear weapons being our freedom to own, and if you say you are that's a cowardly tatical lie to avoid the results of your own illogic, coward.
the cowardice is refusing to see facts and the illogic of your own position.
fact: nation with gun controls, limits and rules are safer, have less street crime, and fewer massacres. hello, denmark does not have one massacre a year, we got twenty in the usa, and hello, delft holland does not have 20 murders a year while aurora colo does, and hello, you can't walk the streets of nyc most of it at night feeling safe, but you can in canberra, sydney oslo paris etc. don't tell me europe's gun laws don't work. it's far fucking less violent there and it's cowardly of you to obscure this fact/deny reality/nitpick details, etc.
second, your second amendment arguments fail and are tautological. if we can't ban rifles, we can't ban nuclear weapons, they are also arms. same for tanks and grenades and screw you, it is not legal to possess tanks, grenades, nuclear weapons etc. are you fucking crazy and are you really saying it's legal or should be legal? this is cowardly retreat into rhetorical nit picking. because no you do not advocate for freedom to possess "arms" like the second amendment says, you are not in favor of 200 million nuclear weapons being our freedom to own, and if you say you are that's a cowardly tatical lie to avoid the results of your own illogic, coward.
44
also, you can have guns here, legally, yes even semi-automatics ones, with that right just come a whole bunch or responisiblities, lock and key (which get checked by the cops) and enforced membership from a range where you need to practice to begin with, hence our gun owners if they ever shoot someone they shoot the person they intended let alone that their todlers dont shoot their litle friends or grandma...
46
@43,
Yes, you can own tanks and grenades here. I personally know a guy who owns fully automatic machine guns (.50 calibre... the ones mounted on armored personnel carriers) and rocket propelled grenades. Live ones. They would really, truly explode if he ever actually used them.
Yes, it really is true, you really can own military surplus vehicles and equipment. It's just an insanely difficult thing to do, but if you're really determined and have a squeaky clean background, you can do it.
The thing is, tons of people own cheap guns, and you never hear about it or know about it because they never get used.
But one in a million will commit a crime, and then everyone goes apeshit about gun control.
How many airplanes successfully take off and land versus how many crash? Should we ban airplanes because one in a hundred million crashes.
Too many people are irrational. You're one of them.
Yes, you can own tanks and grenades here. I personally know a guy who owns fully automatic machine guns (.50 calibre... the ones mounted on armored personnel carriers) and rocket propelled grenades. Live ones. They would really, truly explode if he ever actually used them.
Yes, it really is true, you really can own military surplus vehicles and equipment. It's just an insanely difficult thing to do, but if you're really determined and have a squeaky clean background, you can do it.
The thing is, tons of people own cheap guns, and you never hear about it or know about it because they never get used.
But one in a million will commit a crime, and then everyone goes apeshit about gun control.
How many airplanes successfully take off and land versus how many crash? Should we ban airplanes because one in a hundred million crashes.
Too many people are irrational. You're one of them.
47
@46
Respond to the point on individual citizens "keeping and bearing" nuclear weapons.
Limitations have been subsequently applied to other amendments, why should the Second Amendment be any different?
The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, but not to practice libel or issue threats of physical violence.
The Second Amendment allows us to bear "arms", but that certainly should not include weapons of mass destruction or massacre (including nukes and machine guns).
Respond to the point on individual citizens "keeping and bearing" nuclear weapons.
Limitations have been subsequently applied to other amendments, why should the Second Amendment be any different?
The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, but not to practice libel or issue threats of physical violence.
The Second Amendment allows us to bear "arms", but that certainly should not include weapons of mass destruction or massacre (including nukes and machine guns).
48
@47,
I did already address nuclear weapons in my comment @34.
The thing is, those kinds of weapons are almost irrelavant to the conversation. Anyone who had the resources and who could successfully convince the government that they should be allowed to own stuff like tanks, high explosives, etc., aren't the problem here. Those are the safe people. Those are the responsible ones.
It's the two-bit criminals and that we have to worry about, and none of them would ever get anywhere near ownership of a mass destruction weapon. People don't do drive bys with .50 calibre machine guns.
So what's my stance on assault rifles? That's the really relevant question. I'm not sure what my stance is. I don't think people need them for anything, they just like to have them and fondle them... like exotic sports cars. So banning them doesn't seem like a big problem. The thing is, the unending talk about guns doesn't really get at the real issue: Why do we have so many violent crimes here? There are other countries with shit loads of guns that don't have the same level of crime. So what's going on?
I just feel that people are not focusing on the real problems.
I did already address nuclear weapons in my comment @34.
The thing is, those kinds of weapons are almost irrelavant to the conversation. Anyone who had the resources and who could successfully convince the government that they should be allowed to own stuff like tanks, high explosives, etc., aren't the problem here. Those are the safe people. Those are the responsible ones.
It's the two-bit criminals and that we have to worry about, and none of them would ever get anywhere near ownership of a mass destruction weapon. People don't do drive bys with .50 calibre machine guns.
So what's my stance on assault rifles? That's the really relevant question. I'm not sure what my stance is. I don't think people need them for anything, they just like to have them and fondle them... like exotic sports cars. So banning them doesn't seem like a big problem. The thing is, the unending talk about guns doesn't really get at the real issue: Why do we have so many violent crimes here? There are other countries with shit loads of guns that don't have the same level of crime. So what's going on?
I just feel that people are not focusing on the real problems.
49
People can drive through a crowd of people will a semi truck at any moment... why dont we ban semi's too. Its the people not the objects. Quit being little bitches thinking you can control everything. If ur gonna be scared to live they why dont you do us a favor and die
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (49) RSS