Quote
Tony Leggett
I don't think most of those households have high capacity automatic assault rifles. A well nuanced message would make it clear that no-one is going to take away the handguns or hunting rifles but that maybe - *just maybe* - it might be a good idea to restrict access to the AK-47s etc just a tad? After all, you may be sane, but what about the tweakers in the meth-lab down the road who're (most likely legally) also packing heat?
You ARE aware that the killer in Aurora didn't have an automatic assault rifle, right? That would have been illegal without a Class III license, that is very hard to get. Well, outside of Nevada and I think Montana. To the best of my knowledge, he had a semi-automatic rifle, for which he had purchased a high capacity magazine, which jammed. (Which is why the military doesn't use 100-round magazines.) You are fighting a strawman that the gun control advocates pull out at every shooting: they call semi-automatic weapons "full automatic assault weapons." Full automatic weapons are almost never used criminally in the US. The word "assault" is a misnomer when applied to a semi-automatic weapon, referring largely to its development history and physical appearance rather than its capabilities. They fire powerful bullets, one per trigger pull. One could achieve much the same effect with a .308 hunting rifle. I would say the only true distinguishing feature is the ability to take a larger capacity magazine. The difference between 3 ten round magazines and one 30 round magazine is not as major a differentiating factor as is being portrayed.
I also believe that Porruka's point about the intent of our founding fathers was to provide a deterrent to tyranny is correct, and not as outmoded as he states.
Quote
Tony Leggett
But maybe I'm overestimating the common sense of these folks and that any restriction of gun supply is of course a direct assault on the American way of life.
Our Constitution, yes. The foundation of our nation.
Quote
Tony Leggett
This is what I don't get about the logic of the gun lobby - anything less than unfettered access to any and all weapons equates to Government oppression (and enforced Obamacare, mandatory abortion and gay marriage).
Access is not unfettered. Very hard to get automatic weapons, grenades, artillery. This is not just me making a joke. The point is that we do make private ownership of some kinds of weapons very difficult; you can't maintain that there is unfettered access to "any and all weapons."
Quote
Tony Leggett
In which case (and GWBush jokes aside) until 2004 - when the assault rifle ban lapsed - I assume the US was essentially an oppressive dictatorship without a free press, free speech and free elections?
Note that crime didn't rocket when it lapsed. The ban was ridiculous, banning weapons by cosmetic features ("pistol grip", "bayonet mount") and by name. Manufacturers renamed these newly labelled "assault weapons," ran plastic strips connecting pistol grips to gunstocks and, voila, almost identical guns were street legal. High capacity magazines were still legal to purchase (but not manufacture) and they remained available throughout the ban. Prices didn't even go up that much. My suspicion was that magazines were made abroad and imported illegally. I had a lot of Israeli 30 round magazines for my "Colt Sportster" which would have been called an AR-15 before the ban.
Quote
Tony Leggett
(PS Above rant not aimed at you personally, JW)
I'm not taking it personally, but since I don't feel like anybody else is likely to carry the ball on this issue, I feel obligated.
