Post Your Best Arguments AGAINST the AWB

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ReadyontheRight

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
4,337
Location
Minnesota - nine months of ice and snow...three mo
The gun-grabbers have started the fight.

It will become part of the 2004 election.

Polls are starting to tell us that "XX% of Americans support a ban on Assault Weapons...".

If the ban doesn't sunset, there are those who want to expand the ban to make it permanent and even expand it to include your Garand and your hunting (sniper) rifle.

If you were discussing the Assault Weapons Ban with someone who doesn't know the difference between an AR15 and an AK47, what is your best, most logical argument to educate a fence-sitter or a "they'll never take away my hunting shotgun" gun-owner as to why the AWB is ridiculous?

Let's start arming each other with ideas as we take the fight out beyond the choir.
 
JPFO's video, "Innocents Betrayed".. that's what we're going to be showing on my campus to get a lot of the fence sitters to choose sides.
 
Rather than the usual abstract logic or emotional raving, I suggest some research as demonstrated that the assault rifle ban has had no discernible effect on any known crime indicator. Type Roth, Koper, assault, etc. into google.

One can also discuss that weapons of equal efficacy but not of the same military appearance or accessories are perfectly legal in many jurisdications. Those that have an expanded list have seen no decrease in crime rate.
 

Governor Herbert L. O’Conor

MARYLAND MINUTE MEN

RADIO STATION WFBR AND MARYLAND COVERAGE NETWORK
March 10, 1942

For the present the hard-pressed Ordinance
Department of the United States Army cannot be expected to furnish
sufficient arms, ammunition, or equipment. Hence, the volunteers, for
the most part, will be expected to furnish their own weapons. For this
reason, gunners (of whom there are 60,000 licensed in Maryland), members
of Rod and Gun Clubs, of Trap Shooting and similar organizations, will
be expected to constitute a part of this new military organization.

The Maryland Minute Men, armed with weapons with which they are
thoroughly familiar from long use, operating in a community in which
they are accustomed to every road and trail and stream, and aroused
to fighting pitch by the knowledge that they are serving to protect
their own homes, their family and all that they hold dear in life,
will prove a staunch defense against any enemy activity.
 
My argument is "see this rifle, it is an inanimate object devoid of any moral subversion. until someone with intent picks it up and operates it the way it was designed to function. This intention may be of good or bad nature and in no way affects the operation of the weapon. It will always perform as it was designed. It is time for people to be held responsible for their actions. It is reprehensible to punish literally hundreds of thousands of law abiding americans for the actions of a few crminals who will not, by their very nature, obey ANY gun laws. " No more "life without parole, an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth. Lethal injection is FAR TOO HUMANE for some of the crimes that have been sensationalized by the media to gain support for the '94 crime bill and attempts at it's September 2004 re-authorization. Let it die, restore america's right to keep and bear arms that LOOK different.
 
The election is in November. The AWB will die in September.
Click to expand...

Ummmm... So you're saying there will be no discussion of the AWB between candidates? And the Dems won't try to throw every aspect of "assault weapons" at Bush to see what sticks? Especially if another idiot starts shooting kids?

Just because a bill sunsets, the gun-grabbers are not going to magically forget about it. IF the AWB does sunset, the battle will probably heat up, not stop. September is the perfect time to make political hay.

We need to fight for it to sunset and then keep fighting to avoid a new one.
 
Argument #1 - the Constitution is, on its face, explicitly a document that created a government of limited powers. Further, the Bill of Rights was adopted at the insistence of several state delegations, who only ratified the Constitution because there would be these further, very explicit restrictions on the power of government. Nowhere in the body of the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights was the Fedgov given the authority to disarm the populace or to limit the types or quantities of firearms that are owned by citizens or residents of this nation.

Argument #2 - The entire Bill of Rights has to do with protecting individual rights from the encroachments of government (which, by the way, many of our Founding Fathers noted has an inexorable tendency to grow in power). The 2nd Amendment is not only no different in its intent to accomplish this goal, it is far broader than the other amendments in its protection (..."the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) - other amendments only say "Congress shall pass no law..." or some rights shall not be taken "without Due Process." The 2nd is the only absolute prohibition on government action.

Argument #3 - no society where the general populace was armed has been victimized by a dictatorship, let alone a genocidal dictatorship. Large-scale ownership of effective guns puts the government in fear of the populace, which causes it to lessen its intrusions into the lives of the people. This is, arguably, the goal of our form of government.

Argument #4 - if the government can legislate or tax out of existence that most basic of rights, the right to defend one's life and liberty, then any other right is subject to the same treatment - including (and perhaps especially) Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and the Right to own property. In fact, the lack of an effective counter-weight to governmental power will make the infringement or elimination of such rights that much easier and, given the temptation that near-absolute power provides to mere human beings, such a step is virtually guaranteed.

Argument #5 - Even though this debate should NOT be about crime, I will take on the feeble arguments of the anti-gunners: not only did the AWB not remove any "assault-weapons" or "high capacity" magazines from "the streets," the quantities of the pre-ban versions of these "dangerous" items have remained virtually static. At the same time, literally millions of "assault weapons" (really mere semi-autos that look "scary" to hoplophobes) have been manufactured and imported since 9/13/94. So, where's the freakin' bloodbath? Why is it that many millions of additional "assault weapons" in the hands of the general populace has not resulted in more massacres or some kind of insurrection? The simple answer is that the owners of these firearms are no threat to the established order, or to anyone except criminals - and it is the owners, not the inanimate objects that have been outlawed, that cause crime.
 
I like to point out that no matter how much an "assault weapon" cosmetically resembles a military rifle, it ain't one. They cannot fire on full automatic. They fire one shot at a time, just like more powerful semiauto rifles that you can buy at Wal-Mart. If "they" are allowed to call any weapon that they don't like by a frightening title, then it will only be a matter of time before they start calling "your ordinary hunting rifle that you think they would never outlaw" a "sniper rifle".

I posted this on another forum, in response to a "what good are they, you can't hunt with them" sort of question. It includes my amateurish fisking of some Brady propaganda. Borrow/improve it as you like. I think that it will help to point out and disprove anti lies and hysteria, err... mistakes:
-------------------------------------
"Assault weapons" are SEMI-automatic(one and only one shot per trigger pull) lookalikes of military arms. This is the core of the uninformed emotional and histrionic furor(or deliberate deception by anti-gunners, take your pick) over these guns. No matter how much they look like M16s, AK47s, DeathMaster 6000s, or whatever, they aren't. Before anyone brings up full-auto conversion, it is already illegal if you have not filled out the right Federal paperwork in advance(see here, insert quote here about enforcing the laws we already have instead of making new ones). It is also not as easy as movies and TV would have you believe.

More information:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
http://reason.com/9407/ed.jacob.9407.shtml
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/assault.weapon.html
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/rational.htm
This article describes how the California state AWB outlawed olympic target pistols(yes, smallbore Olympic target pistols) by accidentally classifying them as "assault weapons". Kneejerk. hasty, ill-researched, excessively-hyphenated, feel-good, look-busy legislation like this seldom achieves the intended goal and often screws ordinary citizens.

The other side:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunlaws/awb.asp
Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire.
Click to expand...
This is a lie, or at least a severe mistake. "Semi-automatic assault weapons" fire as fast as the trigger is pulled, but only one shot per pull, just like "semi-automatic hunting rifles".
Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip,
Click to expand...
Also an utter screwup or lie. No military force in the world teaches firing(semi or full auto) rifles from the hip. I ask any veterans to correct me if I am wrong.
and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant hysteria. They still can't go bang any faster than you can pull the trigger, just like "semi-automatic hunting guns".
Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes,
Click to expand...
WRONG, or maybe even a lie. Many armies use full-auto capable assault rifles. No military organization that I know of uses semi-automatic-only assault rifle lookalikes in combat.
assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers,
Click to expand...
WRONG. Silencers are regulated like full-auto firearms. See the federal laws already mentioned above, and doubtless in other threads.
folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant military look-alike features. A folding stock must be unfolded to hit jack squat. and not all "assault weapons" have them anyway. BFD on the bayonet lug, it is a cosmetic feature unless you plan a drive-by bayoneting.
Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire
Click to expand...
Once again, they are semi-automatic, and cannot fire any faster than you can pull the trigger, just like PC "semi-automatic hunting rifles".
and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading.
Click to expand...
I assume that they mean "50 or more". Actually very few have such large magazines, 20-30 is the usual upper limit. Also, the AW ban affects such magazines(and any magazine holding 11 or more rounds) that are manufactured after 1994, just like the guns. The issue is irrelevant for hunting, since various laws forbid mags with more than 3-6 rounds depending on state, gun, and prey. Perhaps I'm clueless, but I fail to see how one 30(or even 50)-round magazine makes a gun able to kill more people than reloading with 20 10-round magazines.
So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public.
Click to expand...
A common misconception. Their ammo is often LESS powerful than "hunting" ammo, for better control of full-auto fire in the actual military gun. In the semi-auto-only verson, it is just an underpowered rifle. For example, the AR-15 uses .223 ammo, which is illegal for deer hunting (due to insufficient power) in many states.

The above is just the tip of the iceberg concerning the misconceptions, and mistakes, if not outright lies, pushed by anti-gun groups and the media. If they feel that certain guns should be banned, I could at least respect their beliefs, even if I did not subscribe to them. This sort of hyperbole by either side insults the intelligence of the reader and damages credibility on both sides of the issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/17apr00/kopel041700.html
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/news/sr20000105.html
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/columns/news/col20000106.html
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2331
-----------------------------------
(end of other post)
More linky bits:

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/0201/ags2.html
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firear...ult.weapon.html
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/rational.htm
http://reason.com/9511/GUNSfeat.shtml
http://reason.com/bi/guns.shtml

The Brady Stuff above is copyright the Brady Campaign, excerpted here for non-profit educational purposes.
 
Here's a nice reply on the Yahoo boards regarding the D.C. "Sniper". Folks on that board are asking "why do you need an assault rifle anyway?"

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138445&tid=nmcrimesniperdc&sid=37138445&mid=28

Re: So-called
by: btiemann 10/01/03 06:50 pm
Msg: 28 of 1941

"Why exactly do people need assault rifles?"

(Assault rifles are fully automatic, as defined by the military. The DC snipers didn't use one. So-called assault "weapons" are a nebulous and growing category, invented by gun grabbers, to mean anything they want to ban next, apparently.)

But to answer your question, it's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. Why do people need indoor plumbing, or spices, or rugs? Why do they need sports cars, or even privately owned cars at all? (Take the bus!) Fortunately, we live in a free country where people can buy things they WANT and don't have to justify to government agents that they "need" them in order to live. That's for communist/Marxist societies. ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his NEEDS." - Karl Marx)

Furthermore, people sometimes face many criminals at once, such as the Korean shopkeepers during the 1991 LA riots. They NEEDED semiautomatic rifles with normal-capacity magazines in order to protect their shops. And it worked.

You would apparently rather have let the Koreans be killed and/or looted, like the unarmed were?

btiemann sounds like a High Roader.:)
 
"Assault weapon" is a fictional, deceptive term that describes guns which are only cosmetically different than other guns. "Ordinary" shotguns and hunting weapons can be just as or more deadly than these guns. There is no meaningful difference between an "assault weapon" and a non-"assault weapon". They are not machine guns. They do not fire more powerful ammunition. They do not fire faster. They are just guns.

Any gun is as good or as bad as the person using it. Millions of Americans own, enjoy use these guns responsibly. Millions of Americans hold the right to bear arms to be as important to a free society as the freedoms of speech, press and assembly. They are our friends, neighbors and co-workers. They are the common, decent citizens of America - not the trigger happy lunatics they are portrayed as by anti-gun groups. These Americans should not be punished for the misdeeds of a criminal few, just as you we should not hold all adherents to a religion responsible for the actions of a few of its followers.
 
First of all, assault is a behavior, not a device.

Second, true "assault waspons" are rather rare on the street, not to mention hard to come by and rather expensive.

Thirdly, the cosmetic features of a military-style rifle has little to do with its lethality vs a 'huntig' rifle of the same caliber. In fact, the hunting rifle, with a longer barrrel, better sights & trigger, may, in fact, be more 'effective'.

All in all, it boils down to the notion of can you get someone who is 'anti' to engage in a reasoned discussion. The facts are clearly on our side, but it means little if you can't get past the emotion. Afterall, you can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think.
 
Just a few weeks ago on a new interview show, Diane Feinstein, arguably one of the bills staunchest supporters could only name one reason why the law should be reauthorized...

She said it raises the price of guns so that fewer people can afford them.

That was it.

Rick
 
Actually, criminals get lots of real assault rifles through theft from government stocks or smuggling. I think someone recently posted an article recently about full auto weapons being found on an airliner..
 
Because it gives Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Clinton fits.

Unfortunately I dont think that we will be able to convince the sheeple that an assault weapon isnt, it has become a part of the culture as another lie that has been told enough times that it is now the truth.
 
Well, hunting rifles are okay.

I'm sure we all get that excuse a lot. You don't NEED an AK-47, and hunting is the only real purpose to owning a firearm anyway. Around here (West Michigan) you can actually get people to concede that home defense is a viable reason.

Pure ballistics might make a good argument. They might not mind the sight of a Mosin Nagant in 7.62x54 in my posession... but do they REALLY want that to be my only defensive weapon? Substitute .308, 30-06, etc. Good hunting round -- not something you want your neighbor trying to hit a BG with! Unless you live out in the sticks.

I can have 2 6 shooters in .357 mag or one glock 21 in .45acp with good hollow points. Which one is more likely to hit your child across the street? Thinking differently now? Good.

Let law abiding citizens chose their weapons of defense. If you think all I should own is a bolt action 30-06 fine, sign here removing me of all responsibility when that round runs through the BG, into your home, and into your head. Hopefully they'll think twice about not wanting you to own a nice lower powered high capacity weapon now.

Just my two cents.
 
I just say it's for the defense of my family and home in case of war or major civil unrest. Just like those Korean merchants in LA, armed with ARs and AKs, prevented their shops and homes from being burned to the ground during the Rodney King riots.
 
She said it raises the price of guns so that fewer people can afford them.
Click to expand...
Soooooooo Mrs. Feinstein, People who make less money are a lower class of people who do not deserve the right to protect themselves or their families ? Hypocrite !:fire:
 
Readyontheright

...Ummmm... So you're saying there will be no discussion of the AWB between candidates? And the Dems won't try to throw every aspect of "assault weapons" at Bush to see what sticks?...
Click to expand...

You may know this already, but just so you're clear, Bush has announced that he's against the sunset of the AWB. IOW, he'd sign an extension, which (for this issue, at least) makes him no better that Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Hillary (!) Clinton, and the rest of the gun-grabbing crowd.

The key, IMO, is to keep the extension from ever hitting Bush's desk. The Senate, of course, is hopeless, so it will be up to the House to stop this thing. If you haven't written your representative, you're not helping on this issue.

The presidential race is over. The D's are all stirred up about nothing, and have been unable to get traction with everything they've tried. Bush wins in a landslide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Sen. Boxer "responds" to my anti-AWB e-mail
Replies
9
Views
873
Treylis
T
M
  • Locked
After the AWB sunsets...
Replies
1
Views
573
Lone_Gunman
L
P
  • Locked
Don't Get Happy About The AWB Sunset Yet
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Publicola
P
B
  • Locked
Why the distrust of the NRA on AWB?
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Don Galt
D
N
  • Locked
Breaking... New NYS AWB Bill to be Heard March 1st.!!!
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
jobu07
jobu07
Back
Top