What a New Assault Weapons Ban Might Look Like

Share Button

California Senator Dianne Feinstein will introduce bill to ban assault weapons. Photo Credit: United States Senate

In the wake of the horrific killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Sen. Dianne Feinstein announced she is preparing legislation to ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons.

The Senator intends to introduce a bill on the first day the new Congress sits.

But if the bill is like the ban that was passed into law in 1994, which expired 10 years later, it will not decrease the number of assault weapons in the hands of American civilians on the day the bill becomes law.

Assault Weapon Ban:What Senator Feinstein is Proposing

On December 17, 2012, Senator Feinstein announced the key provisions of the bill she intends to introduce. The proposed legislation will ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of over 100 specific firearms.

Also banned will be certain named semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can use a detachable magazine, as well as fixed magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

The sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of other ammunition feeding devices that can accept more than 10 rounds will also be banned.

Like the previous assault weapons ban passed in 1994, Feinstein’s bill will contain a grandfather clause. Gun owners who are in legal possession of a weapon when the new law comes into effect will be allowed to continue to own and use that firearm despite the fact the legislation will make that weapon illegal to buy or possess. And it is the firearm that is grandfathered, not the owner’s right to have an assault weapon. Owners will be free to transfer their grandfathered guns to someone else.

Before making her announcement, Feinstein spoke with President Obama. It is pretty certain that if her bill, modelled on the previous assault weapons ban, passes through Congress, it will be signed into law by the President.

The Crime Control Act of 1994

The Crime Control Act was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and signed into law by President Clinton the same day. Title 1X of the omnibus crime bill, known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Protection Act. banned certain semiautomatic weapons. Unlike Feinstein’s current proposal to ban over 100 weapons, this legislation prohibited just 19. It also contained prohibitions against magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

The law contained a sunset clause; barring further action by Congress it would expire after 10 years. No further legislative action was taken, and the assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004. Further attempts to reintroduce it failed to reach the floor of the House, but after the Sandy Hook killings, a new assault weapons ban is likely to be passed into law.

One feature of the 1994 law was that although “transfers” of certain weapons were prohibited, transfers of grandfathered weapons were allowed. Although the ban prohibited new assault weapons from being manufactured or imported into the United States, it did nothing to reduce the number of such guns that were in the hands of civilians. In fact, the manufacturing and sale of assault weapons increases whenever serious discussions are held about banning them.

Click to Read Page Two: Banning Assault Weapons has Unintended Consequences

Share Button
© Copyright 2012 Arthur Weinreb, All rights Reserved. Written For: Decoded Science

Comments

  1. Robert Kavanaugh says

    I recently retrieved a rifle from a third-party on behalf of a friend who was medically incapacitated and outside of California. The third-party had come into possesion of the rifle by default after a small series of the rifles’ legal custodians had moved out of state. The rifles’ owner was understandably concerned about the location and control over the gun

  2. Tim says

    Yet another reason that we should have the right to semi-automatic rifles with hi capacity magazines is the defense of our country against other nations. The current U.S. population stands at around 300 million. There are 1.5 million active armed forces personnel and 1.5 million reserves. So best case scenario that is 1 soldier to protect every 100 civilians. Not a very good ratio in my estimation. The reason that Japan did not invade the U.S. by land during WWII is that we have an armed citizenry. Take that away and we become an even larger target than we already are. We are responsible for our own safety. It is unwise to rely on police/military/government for your own protection.

  3. says

    This is so, so crazy!!!!!!!! What is wrong with our country? Bad People will Always have guns period. Why punish the normal good american person?Im not giving my magizine hand guns to the goverment who would reslae the dam thing to a murderer.Speak up Ameicans, dont allow Obama to take away our 2nd right to bare fire arms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Russell McGee says

    I will never register any of my guns, the govenment has no right to know what I have. If you register your gun it is the first step to confiscation, then we know where it goes from there.

  5. Luis says

    Here is what the Federal government Should ban.
    1- The price of gasoline at $ 4.00 a gallon
    2- Policing the World at a cost to the American people of $420 BILLION a year
    3- Wars that are not necessary
    4- Nation building
    5- Jobs leaving to go overseas
    6-Big chain stores that put small business out.
    7- Big stores that sell 99 % imported garbage
    8-The importation of foreign automobiles
    9-Pay raises to politicians that don’t care about the American people
    10-Forcing us to pay taxes on the money that we already paid income tax on

    THESE WOULD BE A GOOD START OF BANS THAT MAKE SENSE ARE GOING TO HELP THE US.

    NOT A GUN BAN THAT WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR CRIMINALS TO COMMIT EVEN MORE CRIMES!!!

  6. Thomas Ketch says

    The one thing that I would like to point out about the second amendment is that the use of the term malitia would infact refer to a group of regulated and oganized armed citizens not an army. If you know your history or even bother to do a little research you will notice that the Continental Congress had starteed the First Continental Army on June 14, 1775. This was an ARMY not a malitia. The United States Constitution was created on September 17, 1787 and ratified on June 21, 1788. This is 13 years after the Continental Army was started. If the founding fathers had wanted the second amendment to apply to a welregulated military, they would have said it because we had one. However, as you all know it reads as MILITIA and that is a fact. As stated by many others the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or sporting. It has everything to do with an armed citizenry to keep our government in check. We over threw a tyranical government founding this country and they wanted to make sure that the people running this country at any time were never able to become tyranical. If we give up our Second Amendment, even negotiate on what types of weapons fall under our rights, we will be giving up our ability to personally defend eery other right we have as americans and as human beings. The reason we as citizens have access to SPORTING RIFLES (you know the ones of a scary apearence) is because the military, wich our government “controls” has access to similar weapons. If I have to give up my right to semi-auto anything and my “high capacity” magazines then I want to see our nations leades change their protective details over to pump shot guns and lever actions. My fiance and I have just as much of a right to security and defence as they do. However, they are provided or can afford a protective detail, whereas making $12 an hour can barely afford a gun. Fight the good fight people.

  7. Farmer jones says

    Pigs are right
    Some animals are more equal than others
    – Orwell

    I think it went something like that a few years after they ran me off and turned out far worse than we ever were

  8. Ron says

    People are suggesting that by limiting supply of weapons, it will somehow reduce the instances of gun violence. They believe you pass a law and you automatically get the result you hope to achieve. Well, we tried that with alcohol (the Volstead Act). That made gangsters rich and, if anything, increased alcohol use and taught people if you don’t like the law, ignore it. Of course, that is merely one example. However, we also have strict laws against cocaine. Anybody think it is in short supply? When it is in short supply, the only thing that happens is that the price goes up. There isn’t a state in the union that hasn’t got laws against the sale or use of cocaine. The harder it is to get, the more some poople what it. Again, the drug cartels are rich beyone anyone’s imagination. So now, based upon history such as this, some people want to next ban “assault weapons” a made-up, scary term, and they expect to get better results than they did when they banned alcohol and cocaine. One can only wonder is anyone learns from history. Banning anything that people want creates a greater desire to obain the banned thing, makes suppliers rich, and generally becomes a total failure. The people who will want the guns when they are banned are the very ones we don’t want to have them. If anyone out there thinks they will be unavailable because of a ban, the person must have been raised in a monastery where no news was available and everyone always told the truth. In other words, they were raised in fantasy land.

  9. Kevin McCoy says

    The 2nd Amendment isn’t about the people being part of, or drafted into, a well regulated militia. The “well regulated militia” refers to the standing national army at the time … which ‘the people” may need to do battle with if the government ever becomes tyrannical. Essentially, since a standing army is necessary to ensure national security, the people should have access to the same arms as government troops.

    A lot of people say, our government would never do that. While its true our current government likely wouldn’t, but governments do. Can you say for certain things will be as they are now in 50 years? 100 years? This is why the 2nd Amendment is there, and why it is important that it stays right where it is.

    One other point I would like to make, though late, is regarding Walter’s Chinese opium analogy. The problem with that analogy is that, by definition, all opium users were breaking the law. With the issue of guns in America, a very small percentage of those with possession of firearms actually break the law (commit homicide) with them. So, it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Apples-to-apples … how’s the War on Drugs working here in the States? Guns are heavily restricted in New York … they also have the biggest black market for firearms as a consequence.

    My recommendations:
    1. Increase access to mental health services where people can “ease in” to the system rather than typically have to be declared a danger to themselves or others in order to receive treatment. If the CT shooter’s mother could have more easily gotten him treatment, the shooting may never have happened. It was reported that what may have triggered the violence was his discovery of his mother wanting to have him placed in a facility because she could no longer handle him.

    2. Mandate that all states keep the NICS database up to date, and add reporting of certain mental health conditions (violent tendencies) to that database.

    3. Require a NICS query through an FFL for all firearm transfers including those at gun shows. Contrary to what some believe, a NICS query does not register your firearm. So, adding this step does not expose anyone to “registration.” This would at least insure that due diligence was done to help insure criminals and violent people aren’t “legally” purchasing guns. Most casual criminals don’t have “black market” contacts.

  10. says

    We are debating the right “to form a well regulated militia”, not hunting. Why did the founders see it nessesary to have this right? Why did they give us the right to assemble? I believe any American who believeves in our constitution should step back and really think about the larger picture.

  11. Thomas Palmer says

    Why carry 30 round clip? Because my local police force does, which is in power to protect government interest, not public saftey. Do I trust our government? Sure, about as much as I trust them to balance the budget. Our 16 trillion dollar debt just got raised by 4 trillion yesterday, and you do not see the coming disaster? If America was not armed, what do you think our President would do, the same guy who talked about that segment of the country “who still cling to their bibles and their guns”?

  12. Dr. Steve says

    I like the way some are seeing this – why should we have to justify something that is our hobby? Great examples have been given but still logic escapes them. People die from fast cars, people have been killed with golf clubs, tennis rackets and probably many baseball bats. Hell I’m sure at some time somebody had a bowling ball dropped on their head. Ahh you may say but guns are only created to kill things! Not in the hands of a responsible owner. Your 30 foot put mr golfer is my tight group at 50 yards, your strink mr bowler is my smooth run in a competition at the best time I have ever done it – tried golf – too quiet and didn’t really take to bowlning, but to put mind and body together and hit a target with a variety of guns is what many of us enjoy doing – why do I want a particular gun – because I do, it it my hobby exercised only in a safe area and doing no harm to anyone else. All the guns I own except the one I carry is locked in a safe, my carry gun is where nobody else has access and I practice a couple times a month. I am a Vietnam Vet, firearms instructor and proud of my country. Deal with the problem where it lies and leave the law abiding folks who enjoy a hobby that yes can also defend them and it a 2nd ammendment right alone. Thank you

  13. Billy says

    Ban 30 round magazines?
    Fine, put governors on cars so they cant go more than 70 miles per hour.
    outlaw any thing that goes over 70 like Porsche’s
    Stop selling beer by the case or 6 pack, all you need to be legal is 1.
    You do not need a 5 lb bag of sugar, yo only need one a week.
    makes a lot of sense right?
    None of this is any bodies business but mine, so take all your knee jerk feelings and keep them. They are yours.Don’t tell me what you think I should feel or do.Those are mine.

  14. Joe Schmoo says

    Will Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid, both gun owners being giving up their guns….. Would Dick Gregory send his children to a school without armed guards. Would Mayor Bloomberg give up his security detail. I think not, and they should have too…. So why should we allow them to disarm law abiding tax paying citizens……..

  15. David says

    Well as a member of the gun owning elite. For you that do not know what that is . It means I own form 4 title 3 firearms.
    Yes that means real assault weapons ( machineguns ).
    What most are afraid to say is the true reason behind firearm ownership in the USA.
    My Greeeeeat Uncle was at Valley Forge back during the days of the revolution .
    That is why we want and need them . The Government will fall within the next 25 years .
    Someone needs to be able to restore order . It will be the true believers in the constitution that will step forth to accept the challenge .
    We live in a time as such that I can manufacturer my own magazines with a forming die. This is not even a challenge . Many writing here know where to acquire parts for firearms along with having skills for such building. This from parts available from the hardware store.
    A hi cap mag ban is a joke . A gun ban will lead to civil unrest . What many that support a ban do not understand . Is the 2nd amendment has protection already built in .
    Remember what form of government we have in this country . REPUBLIC.
    We understand to protect the children of the future . We must protect the present as well.
    I ask if you want to ban firearms . Then lets ban cell phones as well. No need for a cell phone . Have a pay phone at the corner like 20 years ago.
    Yes kids and adults died in Dec. Oh well it happens . Now get over it as it has happened for more centuries then we know. What about the kids in Africa , How many died there since the shooting .
    You say sandy hook should not have happened. Correct and the kids in Africa dying should not happen .
    BUT BUT BUT it is for the kids .you say.
    So is protecting the rights for the kids of the future . It is not about today . It is about tomorrow .
    Now get in your new foreign made car , grab the cell phone , meet friends at the bar , drink and get hammered ,kill a entire family with your large SUV. Pay a lawyer to get you out of going to jail .
    And by the way that was my family in the old VW bug you ran over killing my 2 boys and my wife 15 years ago.

    • Phil Rozzi says

      I also keep class 3 weapons but i’ll be damned if I pay dealer prices for them like ive seen online. Many people at my local gun show sell these weapons for pennies on the dollar and that’s the only way I was able to afford them or else id be paying 2000 for a freakin’ full auto. You can also modify your own weapons too, diy your own sawed offs and sbr’s.

  16. reqdres says

    Walter, Out of curiosty, how do you feel about the non-stop violence coming out of Hollywood as “entertainment”, as well as violent FPS video games like COD? Also, what are your opinions on the epidemic of SSRI’s and their known dangerous side effects in the “treatment” of mental illness? Iknow how I feel about hose issues and to me they are vastly moe important than the gun control debate. People need to wake up and realize how our culture is immersed in violence. Now add that to a person with know mental illness who happens to be on SSRI’s and you could potentially have a very dangerous situation in the making. Funny how no liberals are advocating the ban of violence in movies and games, now that would be censorship and we can’t have that now….

  17. steve says

    Ok Walter,we ban supply, what about the weapons that are grandfathered, lets say we get rid of those as well.
    Now the next step is to ban handguns because thats all that will be left. How far are you willing to go Walter?

  18. mike says

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”. – Thomas Jefferson (but what did he know??? )

  19. Marc says

    “The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right..The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
    - Tench Coxe, Founding Father, delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
    -Thomas Jefferson

  20. Zayne Peck says

    The second amendment is very clear. Those of you who persist in *only* discussing A) Hunting and B) home defense in regards to the American citizen’s right to bear arms then you are so blatantly ignorant that your argument is void by default. The good, responsible American people need adequate firepower to defend themselves against ANY potential threat which most absolutely includes that of corrupt, ill-motivated government that seeks strip people of their rights just like our forefather’s outlined and our ancestral countrymen embodied very well and very freely. Now, because of a series of events and proposals, Americans that suggest government could be corrupt are in danger of being labeled a *terrorist* and subject to being pursued accordingly but the threat of unconstitutional governmental action can *never* be suggested as impossible or improbable because that is a lie. Most police and military personnel love their country and are outstanding examples of the embodiment of the idea of this great nation. Unfortunately, they could be used against the American people in a worst-case scenario and they are all armed with full-capacity firearms. That would put the American citizens at a distinct disadvantage in regard to self-defensive weaponry and THAT is what the second amendment of the constitution was clearly written to avoid. PERIOD. If ANY potential threat to the American civilian carries a gun with full-capacity magazines then the American people need to own adequate self-defensive firepower. Clearly, citizens will not be equipped with tanks, stinger missiles, predator drones, etc so a rifle that shoots 30 rounds or a handgun that shoots 33 rounds is disadvantageous enough as it is.

    The Sandy Hook shooting is a scapegoat. The shooter stole weapons from his law-abiding mother and bottlenecked children into rooms in which a well-trained swordsman could have killed *more* children with no firearm whatsoever. The Virginia Tech shooter killed more people with a pair of handguns. One of them a low-power .22 caliber typically used to shoot small animals with, such as squirrel.

    Restricting firearm ownership is equivalent to putting a bandaid over a severe gash and not addressing all of the factors that led to the gash to begin with. A decline in strong moral compasses and solid ethics is the problem. If a killer cannot legally acquire a firearm, they will illegally acquire that firearm or they resort to whatever means necessary to do what they want to do.

    Stop ILLEGAL firearm acquisition FIRST then see how badly we really need to take guns out of the hands of good, responsible citizens.

  21. LR says

    Whether the majority of us like it or not, We the People of the United States are on the road to socialism. To complete the process and integrate into a communist or dictatorship type of government, it either has to take away its citizens guns or force their hand to revolt; the latter allows for martial law. You are thinking that this has no bearing on the recent events or the Senate Bill, yes it does read on. Why did they buy over a billion rounds of .40 caliber hollow points? Our local law enforcement are not allowed to carry hollow points and in many states limited to 9MM but TSA can use .40MM? In the recent shootings I cannot imagine he pain and suffering those parents, spouses, and friends are going through in my opinion had those guns been locked in a secure place it would not have happened, had those teachers been armed the outcome would have been different, and in all of the shootings had parents been parents and talked to their kids and treated them as kids were taught in the days of Leave it to Beaver, Andy Griffith, and other shows those shooting would not have happened. What does happen is laws are written. Laws written to try and stop a few stupid people from making mistakes making millions of us suffer (80 – 20 rule, 80% of the problems are caused by 20% of the people). If we lose our guns criminals will be on us like flies on poop. Local law enforcement agencies are scared to take down select criminals because criminal lawyers will drag them thru the mud, possibly get them fired and or jailed for nothing but upholding the law. Our founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect us. If we sit back without voicing our opinions to others including our elected officials we fail the drafters of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The only way to stop killings is to bring back core values, teach kids right from wrong, and to make it harder on criminals. Voice your opinion to your elected officials not to ban guns but to bring back core values. In my opinion some of these are: eliminating murder and criminal learning teaching video games, arresting the Supervisors of Elections for the precincts where the votes exceeded 100% in the last election, people who supplied guns to fast and furious and knew about it, politicians who’s districts have high crime, dead beat dads and or mothers with eight or more children with 6 or more different dads (parents not providing child support can clean ditches, cut grass and weeds on public grounds, and pick up trash), politicians whom fixed it so illegals get benefits, politicians whom have not paid taxes, the founders of the laws creating the housing crash plus the people still pushing it, and eliminating white collar prisons for the well to do. Call and ot write your local elected officals today.

  22. TG says

    I own guns for self protection. The same kind of protection I look for from my local police. People keep saying why do you need a 30rd magazine? Why do you need an AR? Why don’t you ask them…..the police that is. Am I missing something?

  23. John Jones says

    Every time gun control comes up liberals ask why do you NEED an assault rifle or gun magazines that hold 30 to 100 bullets. They say you can hunt or defend yourself with other guns, blah blah blah. The 2nd Amendment was not about hunting folks. At the time the people who wrote the Constitution just defended themselves from a foreign government, and some of the reasons people fled to America from Europe back then is because they were held down, threatened ,tortured, and killed by their own government. So the 2nd amendment was as much about giving people the right to defend themselves from foreign invaders as it is to protect ourselves from our own government. If that day ever comes that we have to defend ourselves from our own government, they are going to have fully auto machine guns-so I think I should have the right to have as much firepower to fight back as they do. I own 15 guns, several of them are considered assault weapons. I’m not a nut. I’m a responsible gun owner. If I want to have a certain type of gun, I’m not hurting anyone by owning it. There are 300 million guns in the US, and about 150 million gun owners. Yet when a handful of mentally ill people commit mass murders the rest of us 150 million people have to suffer. An assault weapons ban is nothing more than liberal, feel-good legislation. It will do nothing to stop nutcases like these mass murderers. The Sandy Hook murderer could have killed just as many people if he just brought his 2 pistols in and not the AR-15.

  24. Todd says

    There are more than enough laws on the books and we still get these mass shootings. I really dont see how punishing law abiding tax paying citizens with more regulation and laws that only us law abiding tax paying citizens will follow will some how now make this situation go away. I have raised 3 sons around firearms and taught them firearm safety, hunting, target shooting, long distance shooting. My sons and I have years of fond memories, as i do with my father and grandfathers,. One of my grandfathers served 4 years in the trenches of europe in WW1, my other grandfather survived the beach landing in normandy. I served as a 12b combat engineer for 8 years,. One of my sons served 18 months in combat in Iraq. All of us who have served and risked all served to defend the constitution of the USA for all of our countries citizens. What part of NOT TO BE INFRINGED UPON IS NOT CLEAR????? Its seems as though when it comes to gun control, common sense goes right out the door. The polititians seem to love using the term common sense gun laws. Isnt murder illegal? isnt organized crime illgeal? gang violence is the vast majority of gun related deaths. So why doesnt the government do something about that. They want to ban sport hunting rifles??? And this is common sense?? I have listened to so many uneducated, uninformed, and flat out liers on tv say that these AR’s are not used for hunting and there only made for killing people. AR 10′s and AR 15 are used daily where I live for hunting coyotes. One more thing the gun industry generates over 100 million per year in revenue and employs ten of thousands of Americans. And they would like to end all that for laws that will stop nothing, prevent nothing. We gaurd our money with firearms why cant we gaurd are kids with them. Obama could have ordered 5 armed national gaurd soldiers be put at every school in the USA before the next day of school, until a long term solution be put in place. People have commented on cost ! how about this, cut back on our tax dollars they just throw at every other country in the world. How about enforce the laws we already have, Mandatory sentences for any crime commited with a firearm.

  25. Kyle sanders says

    I myself own multiple “assault rifles” and many many high capacity magazines. They are fun to shoot. And in no way will changing gun laws help at all. Laws will only help when criminals follow laws. If they want to restrict it. Make people go get educated and take a class to purchase assault weapons like the do with CCW license. But banning or saying we can’t have them is against everything we stand for. The second amendment says “both foreign and domestic”. Including our own government. This was written shortly after we gun owning Americans overturned the government and made it what it is today. The argument can go both ways and will always be a fight. But if something goes wrong who do you call? Someone with a gun, like the police. Limiting certain guns won’t stop crazy people and criminals. It makes things easier for them.

  26. Rich says

    I may be viewed as biased because I own an ak-47 an ar-15 a Thompson smg and a gsg-9 but it is a hobby me and my father have we go shooting for competitions and for fun. Some family’s travel, build/repair cars mine shoot guns like many other family’s. however I am off topic. The second admendment gives us the right to bare arms to protect ourselves to hunt no matter the reason we have the freedom to own such devices. I do not remember what admendment it is but another is the right to a militia. What good is a militia armed with bolt action or lever action rifles or even 10 round semi auto assault riffles if they are against a force armed with fully auto high capacity mag assault rifles. It is part of our freedoms we have all been so happy to embrace when times are good but are so quickly turned against when an incident occurres. My perspective I am 18 I just graduated high school and I grew up around guns and shooting my biggest question was why are our schools and other gun free zones so illequiped and honestly to me blind. The number of people killed because of incidents like columbine or the most current in sandy hook could be avoided by a simple security member carrying a weapon. Yes the argument is kids could get ahold of them and shoot each other but by the same argument couldn’t people steal guns off of cops or security forces in public? The reason people shoot up schools or gun free zones is the fact they are gun free. These killers know it will take authorities time to arrive and no1 will have a gun to stop them. I am in no means glorifying killing or arguing people’s believes just from my perspective as an owner shooter and future carrier, don’t punish us for simply inadequate planning. When I was I’m school and we had our drills we all huddled in classrooms in corners for Christ sake and as a fire precaution and panic almost ever classroom door opens outward to avoid being trapped. If people want to commit crimes laws and regulations will not stop them. Instead of blaming an inanimate object for such actions and try to ban them or regulate them why don’t we all take 5 minutes stop picking sides and arguing and simply look at the reason these actions can’t be stopped. We will never be able to prevent them but we can stop them once the incident occurres by simply planning better and using some logic. Thank you that is my $0.02

  27. tony r says

    Perhaps gun owners should all sign up at the local range and officially claim status as a member of the mitia. This might keep the political hacks at bay. Range time and basic quals count as training thus we are well regulated. Safe weapon storage would have stopped this shooting before it started. How much do you have invested in your collection? A safe is a wise investment and can prevent your gun from unwittingly being used in a crime.

  28. Thomas says

    I agree with Eric registering my AR with the ATF for $100 would not be a problem for me. I would much rather do that than any other idea

  29. Job says

    From what I can see, there are elements of truth in both arguments however at the end of the day, there is in fact a legitimate need for AR-15 & AK-47 weapons in the hands of honest Americans along with high capacity magazines.

    Hurricane Katrina showed us several things that previously were considered impossible to take place on American soil in the modern era.
    1. No public governance in large portions of the State and Federal failure EPIC
    2. No Police or Fire resources to protect and serve
    3. Jails and Prisons emptied and left unsupervised
    4.Looting
    And last but not least, one of the more critical components of a true free for all was the need to take resources from stores such as baby milk, water and food in order for otherwise law abiding citizens to survive. When honest people come out of a Walmart with food to survive, it’s the goons and yes, even the non-criminals who will resort to take ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you have in your cart in order to survive.
    At which time, YOU WILL NEED TO HAVE AN AK-47 STYLE WEAPON In ORDER TO DETER AND DEFEND YOURSELVES.

    Not because I say so.. but because it’s already happened and as always, you can be rest assured that the goons will have their handy. Shame on you if you don’t have at least one handy with the appropriate high capacity magazine to neutralize the threats as they ARE GUARANTEED to appear. And I can assure you.. there won’t be any 911 service other than a busy signal, circuits overloaded please try later or a recording.

    In (metro-Atlanta) Georgia, a couple of years ago we had massive flood with roads simply washed away in a blink of an eye. No police or fire access with people drowning in their cars and being swept away like a nightmarish movie but yet it was real. Very much like Hurricane Sandy but not with half the infrastructure as NYC.

    These and other instances serve as a cautionary tale for the wise.

    Is it a kind of arms race? Yep, unfortunately it is. Get a helmet on and get in the game because with the frequency of natural disasters, global warming (which DOES exist) and criminals roaming the hillsides with these kinds of weapons…. it is irresponsible as a family head of household not to have one to protect your family should the need arise. Remember, it’s going to be your wife and kids looking to you with the” uh oh.. what do we do daddy” look on their faces when things go bad. You don’t want to be “that guy” who has nothing substantial to protect them with while everyone else is making a way.

  30. askeptic says

    China did not deal in a “firm” manner with drug dealers.
    They rounded up all the dealers, and their customers, and shot them.
    Drug Problem Solved!

    As to the rest:

    The 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting!

  31. Rich says

    In 2010 there were more people beaten to death with fists than were killed by all long guns. That includes so called assault rifles. Kinda puts it in perspective. Check it out you will remember it longer.

  32. Rich says

    Its not a question of needs it a civil right restricting government from any infringment. If cops need 30 round magazines civilians need them all the more. We are the first responders to crimes. With 1 to 10 assailants happening frequestly why should we limit us. Yes semi-auto rifles so falsly called assault rifles are used every day in hunting. Just pick up an outdoor or hunting magazine and you will see them. These people that think they know something about guns need to educate themselves on the Constitution and bill of Rights before they enter into a less than knowledgable argument. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting its about we the peoples restriction on tyranny. Disarmed citizens have been killed in the hundreds of millions by their own governments. If you think we can’t fight a modern government ask the Taliban how a scattered force can do.

  33. Brian says

    As to 30 rd mags or high cap, as someone else said, I don’t want to reload every 5-10 rds, I want to shoot. The effect of banning a 30 rd mag for a shooting of this magnitude would be no effect. He (again because no teacher or security was armed) had no threat of return fire. It takes less than 2 seconds to swap mags, he easily had the time to swap as many mags as he wanted before the 1st cop ever showed up. The ban would simply mean more mag swaps.

    Also, though a rare occurrance, people do face multiple home invaders. I know of a few cases of 4-5, now some would say a 10 rd mag is fine for that. WRONG, statistically speaking even cops miss repeatedly in a firefight, so 10 rds isn’t enough. I believe the stats are 80% of people shot with a hand gun live, so 1 shot stopping power is really a myth, it usually takes multiple shots to stop a motivated attacker. You can look up police shootings and see some shot 20+ times before stopping the attack. So absolutely need is there, unlikely maybe, but no doubt it’s still there. It’s unlikely my home will be broke into tonight, or i’ll get carjacked at the mall later, or be involved in a mall shooting tonight, but I will have my hi-cap pistol and 2 spare mags on me anyway. The saying I’d rather have it and never need it, than need it once and not have it, comes to mind immediately.

  34. Brian says

    It’s not a budgetary issue. 49 of the states allow concealed carry, make that all 50 1st and foremost. We can then train teachers/principles to carry concealed at schools. They take the basic CCW course, they can then take advanced and tactical training, or train with the local police sheriff dept.

    The idea that police are so much better trained is a farce. Few have real combat experience, many struggle with basic qualifying on the range. A CCW holder can be every bit as effective.

    We also need to BAN “gun free zones” and absolutely MORONIC thing to do. Why don’t we just have people walk around with a bullseye on them? If your a bad guy looking to kill as many as possible (see the aurora shooter, who selected the theater BECAUSE it was a “gun free zone”} your going to pick the “gun free zone” therre’s no threat of return fire by LEGAL CCW holders. These CCW holders have proven to be every bit as safe if not safer than Police in shootings. It’s another one of those facts the MSM and gun grabbers refuse to put forth. Just like in the Mall shooting when a CCW holder got the drop on the shooter, never fired because people wee in the line of fire, was seen by the shooter and was the target of the last shot before the shooters gun jammed and he ran out. If not for the CCW holder, the shooter clears the jam and keeps firing.

    It baffles me how anyone can support the AW ban that knows the facts. The gun grabbers wil not give you the facts, they will not tell you these are not AW’s, they lie and the sheep buy it. They will not tell you the ban goes WAAAY beyond so called “AW’s”, it gets into pistols/shotguns/other rifles, banning over 100 by name and over a 1000 by cosmetics. The entire ban is based on cosmetics, NOT function, and Feinstein has admitted as much. If people knew what the ban was, and what was effected, the majority that support it now would have a quick change of heart. Funny we’re turning criminals into legal citizens (recent weed laws passed) and law abiding citizens into criminals with an AW ban.

    The mental health issue is a much bigger issue, and MO we should start with looking at the drugs these people are prescribed (if any) and see if there is a tie to a certain drug. There does seem to be certain tendencies displayed by these people, and all I believe were suicidal, which would be a place to start.

  35. Steve says

    30 round AR-15 magazines are not “high capacity”, they are STANDARD capacity, likewise 15-17 round pistol magazines. It’s what the guns were originally designed for. 10 rounds is restricted capacity. More disinformation to cloud the issue. Anyone who says “you don’t need 30 rounds to hunt deer with” is correct, but has no clue as to what the 2nd Amendment is about, and it certainly is NOT about hunting.

  36. Walter McLaughlinWalter McLaughlin says

    Interesting points, at least most of you (although I did enjoy the irony of the “your stupid” comment, and the political inference to the Chinese solution to their opium problem was unnecessary). I don’t believe anything significant will come of the talks about banning assault rifles, so it’s academic. It would never pass the House, and I doubt it would the Senate, either.

    Next question: if not by working the economics angle (law of supply and demand), and if not by an armed presence in the schools (unlikely due to budgetary constraints), then what? Everyone wants the rise in spree shootings to end, that’s no debate. How do we tackle the mental health issue? It’s a heck of a lot more murky.

  37. aaron says

    Owning high capacity magazines doesn’t mean those owners are forming a militia as stated by some. I like most people enjoy collecting these firearms and accessories simply as a hobby. It’s pure fun to go to the local range and let loose on some targets. That’s it…so from my point of view as a form of hobby this ban basically tells me that we are not allowed to have too much fun as a society. I see all these shootings as a metal issue. It seems as though people wanting this ban are avoiding the real issue here…people with mental problems. Banning guns won’t cure mental illnesses.

  38. Dan Phillips says

    To clear up any confusion, some of the coolest gun toys are regulated under the 1986 Gun Control ACT, and are classified as title II firearms, these include:
    Short Barreled Rifles (less then 16″)
    Short Barreled Shotguns (less then 18″)
    Destructive Devices (grenades, etc)
    Any other Weapons (do not fit in any other catagories)
    Suppressors & Machine guns

    All these toys are perfectly legal for any non prohibited possessor to own. Due to the laws of supply and demand (no machine guns made after 1986 are permitted to be sold to civvies) many of the items are prohibitively expensive, 3000 is the minimum for a mac10 type.

    All it takes is a 200.00 check to the ATF, and a signature from your local law enforcement agent, (if applying as an individual) and a 6 month waiting period. There have been only 2 cases in which a title 2 firearm has been used in a crime. NFA hobbyists are among the most highly vetted gun owners and voluntarily get fingerprinted prior to acquiring these weapons.

  39. Hunter says

    Walter, while I cannot say I agree with your point of view, I can understand it, and even respect it. One MAJOR reason I disagree with any form of ban on hi-capacity magazines is that while I am a civilian, due to my work (Fugitive recovery) I have ran into more than one occasion that violence was prevented SOLELY by my having the “larger stick”. I tend to agree with G. on the fact that new laws on paper WILL have no affect on criminals with guns. Fully automatic weapons and explosives/incendiaries are VERY illegal without a mountain of paperwork, and yet they still pop up much more than we would like. As far as NEED goes, fair enough, we probably do not NEED these weapons. But as a firearm enthusiast, as well as competitive shooter, my work aside, these firearms (and magazines) are no more than tools or collectibles to me, depending on which one we are discussing. I know I am going on and on, and I apologize. Bottom line, one guys opinion, the only result of such a ban would be less firepower in the hands of the people who obey and respect the law (people more likely we’d WANT to be armed), with the same amount of firepower in the hands of those with no respect for the law (the ones we DO NOT WANT armed). From where I’m sitting, that isn’t progress of any form. And before you make an argument about that being what cops are for, here’s an analogy for you: Cops are like the Fire Dept, and Guns are like Smoke Detectors… Which would you rather have? The ability to stop the fire before it gets going, or have to wait on someone to do it for you? (That came to mind simply due to my having a house-fire a few years ago, and it took the Fire Dept a little over an hour to respond.)

  40. David says

    Walter you my friend are a sheeple. The government has played you like a fiddle having you believe this is about your safety. Take a quote from Thomas Jefferson to chew on. “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty”. If you truly cannot grasp why these weapons are necessary, then their is no hope for you.

  41. Spencer Trevathan says

    The argument that makes so called “assault” style weapons nessesary for civilian access is the use of then against the tyrant of the government in control… Anyone put in a position of power will undoubtedly exploit that power at some point… It is human nature nothing more nothing less… Thomas Jefferson said it himself, “the good thing about the second amendment is that it will not be nessesary until someone try’s to take it away”… The only reason for a civilian not to have a “assault” style weapon is so that when a conscious superior power come to take control the populous will be less adequate to defend itself…

  42. James says

    And as far as grenades, automatics, etc. go, you can get them with the proper paperwork and taxes. I believe there should be a better way to determine if someone is eligible to own such weapons, but I don’t think banning them will do any good. If it’s so effective, why don’t we make drugs illegal?

  43. Larry says

    Walter, you seem like a reasonable man so let’s get to the real reason why I think the NR
    A and most gun owners ( Including myself ) are balking at this ” High Capacity Magazine” issue.
    Let’s say that this gets thru congress and the ban goes into effect., What’s going to be your reaction the next time a ***** with a gun goes off and does the unthinkable? We all know that this is going to happen again. The Protectionist’s and the gun control advocates will scream for another ban, let’s say 5 round magazines only , it happens again (and it will) the reaction will be ban all semi -automatic weapons regardless of type, the next time it will be pump guns of any type etc. etc. etc. and you know what? The ***** will still get their guns and will still do these horrible acts and the only people affected by these stupid laws will be law abiding citizens. If you continue down this path you will start the disarming of american citizens one gun shooting at a time. Just like a nut tightens up on a bolt, one flat at a time. Please don’t tell me or any other gun owner that this is not the end game. You know it is. These people will not stop until america is disarmed and the second amendment is history. You give these people any opening, they will destroy the second amendment. You may laugh and say that’s not true and gun owners and the NRA are being unreasonable or “out of touch with reality” , we will never go that far. Really? I’m sure the people in Australia and England thought that to in the beginning.

  44. James says

    In all honesty, I don’t need a semi auto rifle with a 30 round mag, or a fancy sight, or muzzle brake, etc. to hunt a deer or to thwart home invasion. Not at all, however, I’m in the military, and I use it for practice. I respect your opinion, but it is my belief that the real reason for the 2nd amendment, regardless of what peoples’ view is on the subject, is to allow the people to be adequately armed to defend against, and even overthrow and renew their government. I can say the majority of soldiers I’ve met and talked to about the subject would agree even though we work for our government . I hope the day never comes, but if the government were to become tyrannical, and attempt to subdue its people, I’d certainly wish to have a lot of firepower. If we could theoretically be attacked by highly trained individuals with automatic rifles, high capacity handguns, some very effective body armor, etc. why can’t I have something similiar?

  45. Nick says

    Walter,
    Flamethrowers and grenades don’t fall under our 2nd Amendment rights.
    Anyways, I own several 30 round mags of a few different calibers and even a couple 75 round drum mags. One of the things I love looking forward to the most in the summer time is firing off hundreds of rounds. And as outlandish as it sounds to a lot of people, I more specifically love firing off these rounds at gophers and jack rabbits. A lot of good times are had when several of my friends and I get in a couple of trucks, head out to a ranch in the middle of nowhere and starting plinking off rounds at gophers or having little side bets at hitting inanimate objects. During this all, a 30 round mag empties very, very quickly…
    That is as good as any reason for me to keep the right and continue to use 30+ rounds magazines. Regardless of how niche it is. To say that isn’t a reason or a good one just means we’ll always agree to disagree.

  46. Christopher Lapping says

    The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government. Technically we should have whatever they do in terms of small arms. Most people say oh that will never happen. Look to the past. It always happens eventually. I’m not saying anything crazy is going to happen right now, but anyone who thinks are government would never try to control us is delusional.

  47. a dude says

    walter your stupid, it is about freedom of choice and flamethrowers are not regulated in any way. you can also purchase grenades in most states, just takes more paperwork and waiting.

  48. rugersr says

    Walter,
    I can understand that your a man that treasures “freedom” by your admiration of the Chinese method of re-education to solve problems. Why not limit our freedom of information to only certain news agencies approved by the government. Why not trample the first amendment while your trampling on the second. Isn’t that how the Chinese keep their citizen safe. The point is more legislation is not the answer and neither is limiting other peoples rights. I believe there are enemies of this country both foreign and domestic and if ever the need arise I choose to defend my family with less frequent mag changes. Constitutional right, shall not be infringed is all I need to say to sink any anti-gun “discussion” you or any other gun grabbed care to have.

  49. Richie says

    Banning semi-automatic firearms will work as well as banning under 21 year olds from alcohol or banning recreational drugs. Funny that BO wants guns banned while his kids attend a school with a security detail of eleven plus the SS.

  50. Russell McGee says

    Also, how many of the gun deaths are by a revolver, pistol, or rifle. You can’t throw statistics out there without qualifying them. Blanket statements like that don’t work. You can massage data to say anything you want it to say. It’s all in the spin….

  51. Russell McGee says

    Why do people need to drive BMW’s? Why do people need to play golf? Because they have the money or it’s their hobby. My hobby is guns. I hunt with my AR-15, I use a 5 round magazine. I have several 30 round magazines. I don’t need 30 round magazines, but I LIKE to have them, so when I’m at the gun range I don’t have to change out magazines every 5 or 10 rounds when I practice, you can’t use 30 rounds to hunt with its againt the law…. You say we have the 10th highest death rate by guns, how many are drug dealers killing each other, how many of those deaths are caused by people that it illegal to own a gun. How many of those people are defending their life or their families lives or property. You can’t qualify the statistics without breaking them down to specifics. LIke the comment above, do we ban Toyotas because 5000 people that committed DUI and killed someone? Driving is a privilege not a constitutional right. BTW, maybe China needs to give Afghanistan some pointers on how to stop the flow of opium, Afghanistan provide about 85 to 90 percent of the worlds opium for herion manufacturing…. Just Saying.

  52. George says

    I think Walter just likes to see his picture on the postings. Things are okay we do not need a ban and we need not change things we need more firearms to arm teachers.

  53. Eric Morse says

    I think Walter has raised some interesting points but I’d like to switch it up and propose an idea that take a slightly different approach.

    Although I don’t necessarily see a reason why a person would need a 30 round magazine for sporting purposes I also don’t see a reason why the federal government should prevent law abiding citizens from owning them. Instead, I would propose that we implement a system similar to what the ATF uses to register restricted firearms including machineguns, short barrelled rifles, sawed off shotguns, and a variety of other weapons that are not readily available to the public. The transfer process requires a $100 tax stamp which is paid to the ATF, a local agent either approves or denies the transfer based on the results of his or her own backgroundinvestigation. The crime rate associated with such weapons is incredibly low, suggesting to me that the program works. If so called assault weapons were required to go through a similar process I feel that it would greatly inhibit a criminals ability to obtain those weapons. This would allow law abiding citizens to continue purchasing high capacity firearms while keeping them out of the hands of criminals. Any thoughts?

  54. natty says

    Actually flamethrowers are legal, and why do I have boxes full of 30rd # mags? Because I want them, and its no harm to you. It’s what I collect, guns and gun parts. It’s my hobby, so what? Life and liberty!

  55. Dan Phillips says

    Walter,
    You make good points, and I understand and applaud your desire to see both sides of the issue. In response to your points regarding the opium trade, opium use was very prolific during that time period so government crack down was effective in curbing the general population’s desire and ability to abuse this drug. Contrast this with the rarity of frequency, as well as the serious and deadly consequences that single person can inflict during a mass shooting with an assault weapon. Hypothetically, in order for the government to eliminate the possibility of an “assault weapon” (which is a misnomer) to be used in any future incident, they will need to track down and confiscate ALL existing firearms currently held. Anything short of this is an ineffectual drop in the bucket. When you add in the mental status and the adherence to the law that most criminals and would be mass killers have, you end up punishing only those who are law abiding and intend to follow the laws. Logistically there are just too many guns outstanding to confiscate enough of them to prevent any future shootings. Once a gun is sold to a buyer at a gun store the paper trail ends. The buyer may transfer the weapon to any other non-prohibited person without alerting the 4473. In this way a significant portion of all firearms are not traceable, and therefore not easily confiscated.

    Hand guns were the most often used weapon in recorded mass shootings, “assault weapons” were a close second, yet D. Feinstein is not proposing to eliminate ownership of handguns but specifically “assault weapons.” If you look at the total amount of injuries per classification of gun including pistols, long rifles, shotguns, “assault weapons etc,” assault weapons were the LEAST lethal of any classification of firearms, behind pump shotguns and rifles. What sense does it make to ineffectually ban a firearm that is only used in a small percentage (yet extremely media publicized) of illegal situations.

    I am a competitive shooter and participate in IDPA (international defensive pistol association) as well as USPSA (united states practical shooting association). One of the divisions of USPSA is the “OPEN” division. This division allows for pistols that have red dot sights, new technology and magazines up to 170mm in length. Most competitors fit in excess of 30 rounds of 9mm ammunition in a 170mm magazine. This allows diversification of the sport, as it requires somebody who shoots production and is limited by the rules of the games to only have 10 rounds of ammo in their magazine to plan out their course of fire much more carefully then somebody shooting open class. When a shooter decides he has mastered one division he is able to move to another division that features a different set of rules and must master different skills. There has not been a single mass shooting to my knowledge where a USPSA open class race gun ($4,500 base price) has been the weapon of choice, yet by banning high capacity magazines, you will punish law abiding citizens who engage in these highly competitive and athletic pursuits. 3 gun is another division of competitive shooting, and also utilizes AR15’s with high capacity magazines, as the competitor

    Lastly, with regards to the second amendment, we need to understand the frame of minds our founding fathers were in when they wrote the document. These people had just won their independence from an overbearing government who limited their basic human rights. They wanted desperately to prevent this from happening again, even if it meant taking up arms against the new government they were forming and would be apart of. While they may not have been able to predict the leaps of technology we enjoy today, I don’t believe that it would have mattered to them if they had fought the revolutionary war with AK47’s and AR15’s. There is not a provision in the second amendment stating that all men had the right to keep and bare arms as long as they were smooth bore firearms and not rifled (the ‘hot technology’ of the day). The spirit of the law was that you were able to prevent a dictatorial government with whatever means necessary.

  56. Gradientblue says

    The reason to have a 30 round magazine is to have a citizen militia, and that is all I can tell. Can someone give us arguments for a citizen’s militia?

  57. Walter McLaughlinWalter McLaughlin says

    You cannot have a modern society without cars, and unfortunately, nobody takes an IQ test as part of obtaining a driver’s license. On the other hand, the number and types of guns could be reduced while still affording the same 2nd Amendment rights. As I said above, it’s a simple supply and demand equation.

    China does indeed practice more “firm” methods, but the economics are the same. No, I would not resort to most of their tactics, but they did pay farmers NOT to grow opium. Hence, less supply, which was a huge factor in their eradication of opium nationwide.

    Again, I still challenge someone to rationally argue the purpose of having a 30+ round firing automatic or semi-automatic rifle. Not to sound trite, but if it’s merely a “freedom” argument, why not allow flamethrowers or grenades for mass consumption while we’re at it? Society has already drawn lines for those types of weapons, and nobody complains that the 2nd Amendment is being infringed upon. So why is it that when limitations on the types of guns (or the size of the clips) is discussed, suddenly it’s a non-starter in terms of the conversation?

    Check out this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    We have the 10th highest death rate by guns (per 100,000 in population) in the world. Every country above us is developing or 3rd world in nature, and quite a few directly below.

  58. Anthony says

    Walter,

    Why are cars that go over 200 mph legal? More people die every year because of irresponsible drivers than gun deaths. I will say I owned a mustang cobra for several years and I drove the nuts off that car every chance I got. I was careful in my mind but not what the law says. My brother was irresponsible when driving that car and flipped it 2 times. Thankfully he didn’t injure or kill anyone. I now own guns as my hobby and I can tell you that to the letter of the law I use and store my weapons. I was much more of a danger in that car than I am as a gun owner. If you want to cut down on senseless deaths slow the cars down. Install breathalyzer kill switches in every car. Don’t pick on my guns period.

  59. John G says

    I don’t think I would use China as a role model of how to run the country, they use very “firm” methods of getting the results they desire. As for the other things, when the day comes that data shows the stricter gun control laws do anything but increase victimization of those no longer able to defend themselves, I will be completely willing to do more in that department. Sadly, those laws just make gun violence more rampant.
    I am open to high capacity magazine restrictions however, I can’t see any pressing need for 30 rounds at once instead of 10.

  60. Walter McLaughlinWalter McLaughlin says

    Facts:

    Your argument as to point #1 would be more credible without the hyperbole. My argument to limit supply is straight out of Economics 101: demand and supply eventually reach equilibrium, and for varying reasons, those numbers are rising. There are millions like you who want unfettered access to any and every kind of gun imaginable, for their own reasons. You cannot control the demand side on an issue this complex, so you therefore control the supply.

    China had a rampant opium problem until the 1950′s. The government cracked down on dealers, reduced the supply, and re-educated the masses. By 1956, the problem had all but disappeared.

    Again, strictly one Independent’s point of view, but I disagree with both #2 and #3 of your points, which I’ve answered in my two paragraphs above. Furthermore, you’ve made NO effort to explain why such major weaponry is needed, either for home defense or for hunting. Unless you’re going to tell me you need such firepower to stave off an entire army of attackers, there is no good reason to have them, and as the China opium solution proved, less supply IS part of eradicating the problem.

    I am not for changing the 2nd amendment one iota, merely the interpretation that zealots have that professes the belief there should be no limits whatsoever.

  61. Jhc says

    The problem with these laws is they don’t fix the problem. Banning a certain weapon caliber that was used in a mass shooting is the equivalent to banning Toyotas because they are the most frequent car driven in drink driving accidents. Any caliber of bullet is dangerous and potentially lethal. The other features they use to define “assault” weapons are cosmetic and or ergonomic and have no effect on making the gun more dangerous. Again back to the car analogy it’s like banning red cars with leather interior because drunk drivers were in those the most. The fact is a gun in the hands of the irresponsible or criminals is always dangerous, regardless of its caliber or the way you hold it. Much like a car regardless of its make model or color.
    And in response to the above question on “need” like the other poster also responded “need” and freedom to own are two different things. In America we all want the freedom to own things. Again back to cars, no one other than law enforcement and emergency services “need” vehicles that can go faster than 50mph but we as Americans feel we have a right to own them. Even if a drunk driver does 100 in a 45 and loses control of the vehicle, wraps it around a pole and kills his teammate….funny no one was crying out to ban card that go over 65 then.
    It’s a double edged sword people. You want the freedom, you deal with those that abuse it and take advantage but that doesn’t mean because of a few horrible people you take those freedoms away.

  62. says

    Walter,

    1 – Who defines “need?” Are you suggesting that we outlaw the ownership of anything but food and water? If not are you at least willing to admit that your argument is completely arbitrary? There’s lots of things we all own that are not critical for daily survival, but if someone wants to ban something the burden of proof should be on them that the new law will actually change anything.

    2 – Banning 10+ round mags (as you shoud already know) won’t change anything given that it only takes two seconds to make a switch. Given that in many instances high capacity mags have jammed in mass shootings (such as in the Aurora shooting or jared loughner’s shooting). If anything bans on high capacity mags may have the opposite effect of what is intended since shooters will likely switch to more reliable magazines.

    3 – No good argument exists to ban such weaponry because such a ban would be arbitrary. When proposition a new restriction, the burden of proof should be on the person advocating such a thing that the new law will actually accomplish anything, otherwise the time and resources spent enforcing it are best spent elsewhere.

  63. Walter McLaughlinWalter McLaughlin says

    I am an Independent and of course have heard these arguments before. The arguments in favor are twofold, best I can tell: 1) responsible gun owners do not need 30+ round rifles (automatic or semi-automatic) for hunting or protection; thus, any reduction in the readily-available supply is a good thing, and 2) likewise, with more than sufficient weaponry out there, no good argument exists to possess these particular types of weapons, period.

    I have yet to hear good answer to those questions. Instead, I hear variations of the NRA’s position that “it wont work.” For reasonable Independents with no particular ax to grind one way or the other, that’s not a convincing position to take.

  64. Ronald Knowles says

    I am saddened by the fact that innocent children were killed, but it was not fault of the semi-automatic weapon. It was the person behing the weapon. If those in power think by banning certain types of weapons and limiting magazines, that the end result will be that there will be no more killings such as the recent incident or those in the past, they are naive. The question has to be asked, what will prevent the crimials from possing such firepower and for that matter, stop killing innocent people? We already have law in effectt that are supposed to stop such heinous things from happening. But they do not. as was stated by Arthor Weinreb. The fact is, CRIMINALS DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE RULES. iF YOU FACE THEM ON THEIR OWN TERMS, THEN, MAYBE YOU MAY STOP THEM. MAYBE NOT, BUT AT LEAST YOU WILL HAVE HAD A CHANCE. And, just maybe you will have saved some innocent lives. Semper Fi…….

  65. G says

    When are the people that come up with these knee jerk reactive legislative proposals EVER going to learn? Banning firearms of any type, WILL NOT decrease mass shooting incidents PERIOD!! Criminals and the mentally deranged DO NOT CARE about gun bans. Read that again people. Criminals and the mentally deranged DO NOT CARE about gun bans. Read it until your eyes hurt, because it’s a FACT. By passing these types of laws, the only thing certain to be created is a perfect utopia for criminals and the mentally deranged. Guns will always be available on the black market and these people will continue to obtain them and continue to target gun free zones. You would have to be a complete Idiot not to realize this. Also, please get your terminology straight. A semi-auto ANYTHING, IS NOT an assault weapon. Branding a particular style or feature of a firearm as “assault” doesn’t address the issue. It never will. Please, people, study the problem, not the tool. You liberals simply just DO NOT understand the issues here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *