Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (41575)	11/19/2005 4:43:24 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

The thing is, "What is an assault weapon?" You don't know, nor do any of the proponents of assault weapons bans. Would a bolt action rifle with a magazine capacity of eight qualify according to your definition? I have one such rifle, and it was the primary assault weapon of Axis powers in WWII. It is comparable in every way but appearance to my hunting rifle, although my hunting rifle is much more powerful. Yet it is no more an assault rifle than a semi-automatic .22 long rifle configured with an ugly military fashion stock, that was banned during the ill-advised assault weapons ban foisted off on us by Clinton. See, that's the problem. Nobody knows what an assault weapon really is, so banning them as a class is stupid and ineffective. Deer hunting has nothing to do with it, although certainly many of the same people who advocate firearms bans would also love to ban hunting. They are wrong on both counts, for reasons of moral and cultural history, constitutional provisions, laws, and natural laws. The Second Amendment is not about, as you put it, arming yourself to the point where you threaten the safety of others. It is about a Constitutionally protected right that is a vital element of our freedom. I personally do not want my freedom chipped away in little flakes the fraudulent assault weapons ban, nor in big chunks by the loss of our freedom to keep and bear arms. There are quite enough reasonable limits on behavior in our laws. Enforce them. Owning and carrying firearms is reasonable under current laws, as are the consequences of firearms abuse. People who abuse firearms should be dealt with harshly. And no whining about some moron who gets life under the three strikes and you're out law. Tough for him, good for the rest of us who live responsibly under freedom. Arming yourself to the point where you threaten the safety of others to a compelling degree is not a sacred right. Society determines reasonable limits on behavior--and reasonable restrictions on owning and carrying dangerous weapons.

To: Solon who wrote (41575)	11/22/2005 7:01:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

There is no significant increase in safety to law enforcement personnel from banning "assault weapons". Such weapons are defined primarily by cosmetic details, not functional details that greatly affect their performance as weapons. Hand guns are the main weapon of crime (they can be cheap and they are concealable). Shot guns have more close in power. Normal hunting rifles have greater effect at very long ranges. There are any number of guns with very similar characteristics to the so called assault weapons that were not classified as such because they lacked such features as a bayonet lug. The "assault weapons ban" was portrayed by it supporters as banning automatic weapons. It did not, they where already heavily regulated. If you only want to hunt a deer--you don't need a grenade launcher. Grenade launchers have little to do with the idea of an assault weapons ban. Many so called assault weapons are comparatively low power weapons.