shooterx10
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2003
- Messages
- 159
Should Congress allow the sunset clause of the assault weapons ban
By Ken Goodall and James Buchanan
[email protected]
Face off:
Exploring issues of the day
Ken Goodall and James Buchanan
The federal law banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, known as the federal assault weapons ban, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on Sept. 13, 1994. However, the assault weapons ban will expire ("sunset") in September 2004 unless Congress and President George W. Bush renew it.
KEN: The assault weapons ban was bad legislation when it was enacted and no law deserves a quicker death than this fragmented, disjointed, and misguided attempt to ban firearms. This law deals with threaded barrels, pistol grips, and folding stocks. These features can make a firearm look real scary. This law has little to do with the power, strength, or accuracy of a firearm, and more to do with how mean they look.
The legislators picked mean looking firearms with folding stocks and pistol grips. The fact is that my deer rifle is stronger than many of those that were banned. This was a planned attack on a set of firearms that would give them the chance to start banning firearms. These legislators knew what they were doing; they knew that there were many other firearms of equal and greater power that were not being banned. These anti-firearm legislators planned their attack with the easy target first. Now when will they bring up the other so-called deadly assault weapons? One of the fastest shooters in the world can fire a single-action cowboy revolver as fast as an automatic. Even an old-fashioned six shooter can become an assault weapon.
JAMES: Legislators did pick "mean" looking firearms for a reason - they are generally high powered and able to spray a large number of bullets in a general area as a means to maximize their lethal effects. In your statement you are partially correct about what the assault weapons ban does not permit, but you should have also included bans on guns with clips of 10 or more rounds, threaded barrels that can support flash suppressers and grenade launchers, bayonet mounts, and specific weapons such as Kalashnikovs, Uzis, Ar70s, AR15s, and others. I should also point out that the assault weapons ban also protects more than 600 sporting rifles. The distinction the law makes is that it bans semi-automatic weapons with multiple assault weapon features. In short, it bans very dangerous weapons that are designed for no other reason than to kill. Further, the ban was instituted because these weapons - legally obtained - had become the favorite of drug dealers and other violent criminals, which is a key reason why the ban is supported by the law enforcement community.
The point is that these are dangerous weapons with no legitimate target or sporting purpose. Banning them is nothing more than common sense public safety and not an attack on an individual's right to own a gun.
KEN: First let's look at the banned Colt AR15 a semi-automatic rifle that shoots a .223 bullet, accepts a detachable magazine, has a black synthetic stock, and looks like a military rifle. Then look at a Ruger Mini 14, which is a semi-automatic rifle that shoots a .223 bullet, accepts a detachable magazine, has a wooden stock, and looks like a conventional rifle. These rifles shoot basically the same with the same power, so what's the difference you ask? The black synthetic stock looks mean; the wooden stock does not. That's it. That's the only difference, well except for the fact that the Colt AR15 is banned and the Ruger Mini 14 is not.
The argument that the law bans flash suppressors and grenade launchers is a total joke. The fact is that the only reason that flash suppressors were banned is because the military versions are able to accept a threaded grenade launcher. This is a stupid law because grenades are already considered illegal under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as a destructive device. Since grenades are already illegal there is no reason to add flash suppressors to the list.
JAMES: I know what an AR15 looks like, but I do not know what the other weapon you mentioned looks like. However, the point is that weapons, such as the AR15, that are designed to be fired from the "hip" and in a manner as to be relatively accurate when spraying bullets are banned by the law while weapons that are designed to hit targets (i.e. for competition, recreation, or hunting) are not. Essentially, the design of a weapon can either limit or create certain affordances such as its ability to quickly spray bullets or accurately shoot at a specific target.
The larger point, though, is that banning these weapons is a rational response to their consistent use to kill people not a limitation on a person's right to own a gun. All rights under the constitution are balanced between the rights of individuals and that of society. People have the right to free speech, but not to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, people have a right to drink alcoholic beverages, but not to drink and drive. By placing common sense restrictions on guns such as background checks and banning certain weapons we are balancing the rights of individuals to own guns and society in general to feel one margin safer.
KEN: As I had said, the AR15 and the Ruger Mini 14 fire the same ammunition, with the same amount of power, and have similar capacities. The only difference between the two is how they look. The AR15 was not designed to be shot from the hip. The new military version no longer has the ability to fire at full auto and spray bullets. It now fires in three shot bursts and has the functionality to aim on target out to 800 yards. That is definitely not shooting from the hip.
The fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or even protection against crime, it was established as protection against or own government. The United States Declaration of Independence states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." This is why it is against our own principles to limit our ability to stand up to our government. Our founding fathers knew that and it is too bad that so many citizens today don't. Most of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are protections against our own overbearing government, and the Second Amendment is one of them. That is why the assault weapons ban is actually an assault on the principles that this country stands for.
JAMES : The wording of the Second Amendment says nothing about allowing citizens the right to attack the government with all available firepower. It merely states that in order for states to maintain militias they have the right to bear arms. This right is extended onto individuals as a right to own a gun, not attack the government when they disagree with its policies. I, and most other citizens, keep guns for many reasons, but not to act as Carl Drega did a few years ago in this state when he used high-powered assault weapons to kill two fathers (police officers), a mother (local judge), and a father (newspaper publisher).
Lastly, to those who view assault weapons bans and background checks as the slippery slope toward a total ban it should be said that the slope is made slick with the blood of many innocents. When are the gun lobby and its adherents going to realize that the biggest threat to gun ownership is the mounting body count and the fact that people do not feel safer when assault weapons are freely made available and when anyone- including the deranged, felons and those with restraining orders - are able to legally purchase weapons at shops and gun shows without a background check. Common-sense legislation aimed at protecting people are the best measures to ensure the public views gun ownership favorably and not as a threat.
What's your stand on the Face Off question of the month? E-mail your thoughts or issues you'd like to see Ken and James debate to [email protected] or write to Face Off, Seacoast Newspapers, P.O. Box 250, Exeter, NH 03833. Please include your name, town of residence as well as your telephone number for verification.
Here is the link.
By Ken Goodall and James Buchanan
[email protected]
Face off:
Exploring issues of the day
Ken Goodall and James Buchanan
The federal law banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, known as the federal assault weapons ban, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on Sept. 13, 1994. However, the assault weapons ban will expire ("sunset") in September 2004 unless Congress and President George W. Bush renew it.
KEN: The assault weapons ban was bad legislation when it was enacted and no law deserves a quicker death than this fragmented, disjointed, and misguided attempt to ban firearms. This law deals with threaded barrels, pistol grips, and folding stocks. These features can make a firearm look real scary. This law has little to do with the power, strength, or accuracy of a firearm, and more to do with how mean they look.
The legislators picked mean looking firearms with folding stocks and pistol grips. The fact is that my deer rifle is stronger than many of those that were banned. This was a planned attack on a set of firearms that would give them the chance to start banning firearms. These legislators knew what they were doing; they knew that there were many other firearms of equal and greater power that were not being banned. These anti-firearm legislators planned their attack with the easy target first. Now when will they bring up the other so-called deadly assault weapons? One of the fastest shooters in the world can fire a single-action cowboy revolver as fast as an automatic. Even an old-fashioned six shooter can become an assault weapon.
JAMES: Legislators did pick "mean" looking firearms for a reason - they are generally high powered and able to spray a large number of bullets in a general area as a means to maximize their lethal effects. In your statement you are partially correct about what the assault weapons ban does not permit, but you should have also included bans on guns with clips of 10 or more rounds, threaded barrels that can support flash suppressers and grenade launchers, bayonet mounts, and specific weapons such as Kalashnikovs, Uzis, Ar70s, AR15s, and others. I should also point out that the assault weapons ban also protects more than 600 sporting rifles. The distinction the law makes is that it bans semi-automatic weapons with multiple assault weapon features. In short, it bans very dangerous weapons that are designed for no other reason than to kill. Further, the ban was instituted because these weapons - legally obtained - had become the favorite of drug dealers and other violent criminals, which is a key reason why the ban is supported by the law enforcement community.
The point is that these are dangerous weapons with no legitimate target or sporting purpose. Banning them is nothing more than common sense public safety and not an attack on an individual's right to own a gun.
KEN: First let's look at the banned Colt AR15 a semi-automatic rifle that shoots a .223 bullet, accepts a detachable magazine, has a black synthetic stock, and looks like a military rifle. Then look at a Ruger Mini 14, which is a semi-automatic rifle that shoots a .223 bullet, accepts a detachable magazine, has a wooden stock, and looks like a conventional rifle. These rifles shoot basically the same with the same power, so what's the difference you ask? The black synthetic stock looks mean; the wooden stock does not. That's it. That's the only difference, well except for the fact that the Colt AR15 is banned and the Ruger Mini 14 is not.
The argument that the law bans flash suppressors and grenade launchers is a total joke. The fact is that the only reason that flash suppressors were banned is because the military versions are able to accept a threaded grenade launcher. This is a stupid law because grenades are already considered illegal under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as a destructive device. Since grenades are already illegal there is no reason to add flash suppressors to the list.
JAMES: I know what an AR15 looks like, but I do not know what the other weapon you mentioned looks like. However, the point is that weapons, such as the AR15, that are designed to be fired from the "hip" and in a manner as to be relatively accurate when spraying bullets are banned by the law while weapons that are designed to hit targets (i.e. for competition, recreation, or hunting) are not. Essentially, the design of a weapon can either limit or create certain affordances such as its ability to quickly spray bullets or accurately shoot at a specific target.
The larger point, though, is that banning these weapons is a rational response to their consistent use to kill people not a limitation on a person's right to own a gun. All rights under the constitution are balanced between the rights of individuals and that of society. People have the right to free speech, but not to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Similarly, people have a right to drink alcoholic beverages, but not to drink and drive. By placing common sense restrictions on guns such as background checks and banning certain weapons we are balancing the rights of individuals to own guns and society in general to feel one margin safer.
KEN: As I had said, the AR15 and the Ruger Mini 14 fire the same ammunition, with the same amount of power, and have similar capacities. The only difference between the two is how they look. The AR15 was not designed to be shot from the hip. The new military version no longer has the ability to fire at full auto and spray bullets. It now fires in three shot bursts and has the functionality to aim on target out to 800 yards. That is definitely not shooting from the hip.
The fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or even protection against crime, it was established as protection against or own government. The United States Declaration of Independence states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." This is why it is against our own principles to limit our ability to stand up to our government. Our founding fathers knew that and it is too bad that so many citizens today don't. Most of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are protections against our own overbearing government, and the Second Amendment is one of them. That is why the assault weapons ban is actually an assault on the principles that this country stands for.
JAMES : The wording of the Second Amendment says nothing about allowing citizens the right to attack the government with all available firepower. It merely states that in order for states to maintain militias they have the right to bear arms. This right is extended onto individuals as a right to own a gun, not attack the government when they disagree with its policies. I, and most other citizens, keep guns for many reasons, but not to act as Carl Drega did a few years ago in this state when he used high-powered assault weapons to kill two fathers (police officers), a mother (local judge), and a father (newspaper publisher).
Lastly, to those who view assault weapons bans and background checks as the slippery slope toward a total ban it should be said that the slope is made slick with the blood of many innocents. When are the gun lobby and its adherents going to realize that the biggest threat to gun ownership is the mounting body count and the fact that people do not feel safer when assault weapons are freely made available and when anyone- including the deranged, felons and those with restraining orders - are able to legally purchase weapons at shops and gun shows without a background check. Common-sense legislation aimed at protecting people are the best measures to ensure the public views gun ownership favorably and not as a threat.
What's your stand on the Face Off question of the month? E-mail your thoughts or issues you'd like to see Ken and James debate to [email protected] or write to Face Off, Seacoast Newspapers, P.O. Box 250, Exeter, NH 03833. Please include your name, town of residence as well as your telephone number for verification.
Here is the link.