I can't find the exact law, but on the surface this would seem to violate the 2nd amendment

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Wouldn't banning any type of weapon infringe upon the right to bear arms? I understand some weapons should be banned, but unless the constitution is changed, aren't these bannings violating it?

[Edited on 9-5-2004 by Cutwolf]

What kind of weapon should be banned? the most powerful weapons are the hardest to control and use accurately. Well it does violate it. The thing is, most people don't want to challenge the government. I'm too young to challenge them, as it is hard for minors to get lawyers and such. When I am 18, I want to ask clinton what was he thinking and maybe sue the govmt

The thing is, most people don't want to challenge the government.

this is pretty accurate. i notice a lot of people have this defeated attitude towards the government and how it acts. they believe they cant do anything about the govt and they're to an extent. one person cant do a lot by themselves, the problem is however noone wants to even try. we vote these people into office and part of the problem is people actually believe the BS the politicians are spewing at them. everyone is afraid to act as one, claiming they're too busy or finding any excuse to not even try. just speaking up and letting others hear you is an attempt. speak your mind, let your voice be heard by other citizens and the government.

so many people are afraid of what they'll lose if they try. look at what we've been losing while doing nothing. damned if you do and damned if you dont.

You ARE infringing on the people's right to bear arms. You are saying they CANNOT own certain arms, therefore you are infringing on their right to own arms. Any restriction is technically infringing.

If you go by what you said with "since you can still own arms, your right is not being infringed" than the government can ban all guns and only allow people to own pointy sticks - after all, they still are allowed to bear pointy sticks as arms?

AceofBase, I will agree that the murder rate did in fact drop in areas and states that have passed concealed carry laws - but if you care to check the statisics on areas such as DC,NYC and their environs that have the strictest gun control laws in the nation you will find that the murder rate has not dropped and in some cases it has increased. I suppose that when the criminals know there is a chance the victim will shoot back they show more restraint, on the other hand if they know you are unarmed its like open season isn't it. Canadas government will never have to worry about anything it desires to do in the future because the Canadian people are virtually unarmed and can't do a thing but trust that the government will always remain benevolent - kind of like sheep trust the sheperd eh!

What does the average person need an asault rifle for? Terrorist deer and fowl?

I am not opposed to gun ownership by any means and love to go shooting myself, but I cannot see why the average-joe needs an AK-47 of an AR-15 for......duck hunting? Home protection? A hand-gun, rifle or shotgun will do just fine. All three are equaly effective for stopping an intruder or attacker.

I have personally shot several assault rifles and seen the damage they can do....... those laws are needed. Some people are not right in the head or have ulterior motives and should not be alowed such weapons. Waco, Columbine and the LA Bank Robbery shoot-out com to mind...... (two robbers out-gunned the LAPD!)

Shooting is alot of fun, but there are too many lives to risk out there by making assault rifles readily available to the general public. Perhaps a rigorous traing and liscensing process maybe? Something along the lines of what the Germans have to go through to get a car liscense???? In other words, no compulsive purchases, make it challenging.

You can still bear arms in this country, but is there a true need to own an AK?

That ammedment was written because of a basic need in the 1700's. I really do not see that need applying to the public needing to own assault rifles in the present.......

What level is infringing? How do you define certain arms? What is the limit on the right to bear arms>? would it be alright for me to have a nuke?

Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by AceOfBaseThe number of homicides has gone down significantly since the gun laws were strengthened.

I'm sure they have, but that doesn't mean it had anything to do with the so called "assault weapons ban". While is easy to assume the ban had some impact, making a blanket statement like that while ignoring all the other factors involved that may have lowered the amount of homicides smells of gun control lobby propaganda.

How many homicides occured in the past where the eleventh or higher round in the clip was used?

I agree with most if not all the publically said reasons they went after these weapons. Problem is there's many unsaid reasons that they don't want people to hear. Lies, lies, lies and more lies.

Deception using lies & illusions is what the gun control lobby is all about, otherwise I'd be happy to support them if their agenda was the preservation of life. I suspect most of those working for them don't have a clue that they've been decieved.

Originally posted by Facefirst
I have personally shot several assault rifles and seen the damage they can do....... those laws are needed.

Ah, I see now it's okay for you, but not the rest of us minions.

In other words, no compulsive purchases, make it challenging.

What a relief, there maybe hope for you yet. I'm glad I found something we agree on. While their at it how about making it more challanging to get a drivers license as well.

That ammedment was written because of a basic need in the 1700's.

Here we go back with the gun lobby propaganda again. The need was in case we had to kill people who wished to take away our liberty & freedom once again. At that time guns were most efficient to do the job and they probably still are. As individuals we do not have much effect by killing a few people, as a group the threat is a valid deterrent.

I really do not see that need applying to the public needing to own assault rifles in the present.......

When you put the word present in as time based a qualifier I can agree with this, but I do not have a crystal ball. However I am aware that taking them away today equals not having them should the need arrise in the future.

What is the limit on the right to bear arms>? would it be alright for me to have a nuke?

The limit is something we all need to agree on and will continue to be a subject of debate. Right now most of us except most firearms as that right. It's good to argue about the exact details. Gun will always be a deterrant by being able to kill an individual.

We allow qualified pilots to have a nuke, but unless your part of that control structure almost nobody on earth would want you or any individul to have such a weapon.

Just my thoughts.


[Edited on 11-5-2004 by outsider]

Just because two statistics are near each other in time, you cannot assume that A caused or was caused by B. As a matter of fact, gun violence did decline during that period.

During that same period, many western and southern states also developed "Concealed carry laws," which license citizens to be trained to use a handgun safely, fingerprints them (and in some cases the handgun) and lets them 'legally' carry it on their person.

When it comes to accidental shootings of by-standers, the cops hit someone roughly 1 time in 11. For concealed carriers, it's less than one in 30! Maybe cops should be forced to take a concealed handgun class!

In those states with concealed carry laws, home invasion and car-jacking have dropped to record lows. And so have the associated murders.

NYC and DC led the nation in home invasion. Miami was 3rd until Florida passed concealed hand-gun laws. Then it dropped out of the top ten.

I'd love to have a small tactical nuclear weapon. Would you feel comfortable with me having that as your neighbor? How about a couple hundred pounds of TNT? A howitzer? How about a basement full of cluster bombs?

Seriously, there needs to be some kind of limit. Can't you kill people good enough with a shotgun or semi-automatic handgun? How fast do you need to be able to kill people?

I agree that the government, in 95% of all cases, should screw off and stay out of our lives. But maybe banning certain types of military weaponry is not such a bad idea? Come now, you must admit that there has to be a line drawn at least somewhere.

Originally posted by outsider

Originally posted by Facefirst
I have personally shot several assault rifles and seen the damage they can do....... those laws are needed.

Ah, I see now it's okay for you, but not the rest of us minions.

In other words, no compulsive purchases, make it challenging.

What a relief, there maybe hope for you yet. I'm glad I found something we agree on. While their at it how about making it more challanging to get a drivers license as well.

That ammedment was written because of a basic need in the 1700's.

Here we go back with the gun lobby propaganda again. The need was in case we had to kill people who wished to take away our liberty & freedom once again. At that time guns were most efficient to do the job and they probably still are. As individuals we do not have much effect by killing a few people, as a group the threat is a valid deterrent.

We allow qualified pilots to have a nuke, but unless your part of that control structure almost nobody on earth would want you or any individul to have such a weapon.

Just my thoughts.


[Edited on 11-5-2004 by outsider]

I never said is was OK for me and no one else. That is an assumption on your part. Also, for the record, when I had gone shooting using assault rifles, it was in the company of two Qualified US Army Marksmen. There is a big difference between going to the range unsupervised or not knowing what you are doing.

Hope for me yet?

Bone up on your history:

The basic need for firearms in the 1700s was one of not only liberty, but of SURVIVAL. If you lived outside of a major city then, you HAD to hunt to eat meat in those days. Also, there was not an established Police force in most places. The need to own a firearm for self defence, regardless if the threat was criminals, hostile-Native Americans, wild animals or British Troops, was justified and a NEED.

I can't help but agree with you on the liscensing aspect. (both driver and shooter) The fact that any unqualified yutz can go into the local gun store and by walk out with an AR-15 bothers me. That being said, the black market is pretty large too. But I think strict requirements for Firearm ownership are paramount to having improved gun laws. For example: If you just got out of the State Looney-bin for Felony assault, you should not be allowed any weapons.

I agree that in a perfect world, no one should have a nuke. That being said, I just used the word "nuke" for effect in my question of what defines a gun limit.

We both agree that we need tighter laws though. At least there is that.

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by Facefirst]

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by Facefirst]

Originally posted by AceOfBase

On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

I believe there was a similar decrease in gun related homicides in Canada when they toughened their laws.


[Edited on 9-5-2004 by AceOfBase]

So, having a 10 round magazine, instead of an 11 round magazine, drastically reduced the homicide rate??

Cops are allowed to carry these weapons; who's gonna keep them in check if the government decides to declare martial law? The FBi was made to think twice about going after the Montana Freemen, after the Waco and Ruby Ridge debacle.

Fact is, it is an infringement on rights protected by the Constitution. Outside of Prohibition, once the government takes something away, the very rarely give it back.

Originally posted by nathraqSo, having a 10 round magazine, instead of an 11 round magazine, drastically reduced the homicide rate??

No. What I said was that it went down after they toughened gun laws.
I didn't say it was because of the banning of assault weapons.
Part of toughening the guns laws was performing background checks and I believe that had more to do with the reduction in homicides and armed robberies than the restriction on how many rounds a clip could hold.

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by AceOfBase]

No. What I said was that it went down after they toughened gun laws.
I didn't say it was because of the banning of assault weapons.
Part of toughening the guns laws was performing background checks and I believe that had more to do with the reduction in homiceds and armed robberies than the restriction on how many rounds a clip could hold.

Understood.

Background checks I can deal with.