US AG Proposes ban on weapons

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Ban on semi auto rifles and clips with more than ten rounds in them.
Change I can believe in.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Still not taking your guns away, just making rapid firing massacres less likely.

I'd be all for this if I lived in the States. But I don't. So, yeah. Genuinely feel free to ignore my mewlings on this one.

**Da Boss**

I doubt it will make it through. If it does, it's probably better than some of the stuff the Bush Administration got up to.

**Frazzled**

None of these would impact "rapid firing massacres" in the US.

Its a fundamental right. Its like saying you have freedom of speech except on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

The argument this helps Mexico is a travesty
1. Since when have our fundamental rights been taken down for another nation?
2. The Mexcian gangs are using FULLY automatic weaponry, grenades etc. This stuff is not coming from the US-we don't have that. Lets get real the gangs are using paid Mexican army troops often.

**dietrich**

When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!

They need to stop restricting types of weapons and start restricting who they let own weapons. Some people shouldn't be trusted with a nailgun.

**Frazzled**

Agreed on that.

**Da Boss**

Yeah, I also agree on that. Overall bans seem like a bad way to do it.

**Kilkrazy**

Isn't there already a ban on handgun magazines holding more than 10 rounds?

**garythewargamer**

Hey the criminals like this ban therefore it must be bad for us normal taxpaying, working and voting American citizens.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:Isn't there already a ban on handgun magazines holding more than 10 rounds?

No. There was for a period of time but that expired. Now Obama wants to re-instate it..."to help the Mexicans."

**Tek**

It's a big cultural debate though. Seeing as guns have always been banned here, owning firearms seems positively abhorrent.

Sayings like "it's a fundemental right" and "only outlaws will have guns" sound really peculiar to me.
BTW, I'm trying very hard to be non-offensive; if I do somehow offend anyone, I'm sorry, that's not my intention.

To me, fundemental rights are things like shelter, food and water. Certainly not a tool for murder.
Gun control issues aside, guns were designed to kill. That's a fact.

But, as both myself and my brother agree, taking guns out of the American culture will likely do more damage than keeping them in.

The first amendment that people bring up whenever guns are mentioned. IMO the first amendment had definate gravity in frontier days, where the right to bear an arm for protection was a neccesity.

In honesty though, how many of you people have been robbed at gunpoint for your gold ore? Or had someone rob your stagecoach on the way to the depository?

IMO the laws are outdated and too many people cling to them.

Guns are outlawed here, and I like it that way. Sure, only criminals have guns; and thats why the police shoot them.

Surely banning mental forms of firearms like (semi)automatic rifles can only be a good thing?

**Da Boss**

The situations aren't really comparable though Tek: The guns are out there, banning them is not going to get them back. It really will just disarm honest people while leaving a lot of others armed illegally. Criminalising the population is never a good idea. I think controls on who gets guns are a much better idea for a country like america.
And I'm delighted to live in a country without a gun problem by the way, but America is a whole other kettle of fish.

**Frazzled**

You also have open borders here, with Mexican organized crime violence now spilling across into Texas.

**dietrich**

Also, keep in mind that while the numbers have diminished, game hunting and target shooting are still wildly popular activities, which requires the population to have the ability to own firearms.

I have not been robbed, but my Uncle in the Chicago area has had several attempted (and when not there, successful) robberies of his house.

The problem isn't with the types of weapons that are legal, the problem is with who owns them.

I know that there a lot of people in the US who have the misguided 'if I have a gun, no one will rob me, because the gun scares them off' mentality. That doesn't work. Having a gun only entices the other guy to shoot you first.

More people are shot with their own weapon, or shot a family member, than shoot an intruder.

**Redbeard**

Tek wrote:It's a big cultural debate though. Seeing as guns have always been banned here, owning firearms seems positively abhorrent.

Since when were guns always banned? Both my grandfather and my uncle own (or owned, in my grandfather's case) firearms, that they use for hunting. (And, yes, while I'm in the US, I'm an expat. My uncle lives in Kent (Westerham), my grandfather lived in Norfolk (Kings Lynn).

**Kilkrazy**

Guns were fairly easy to get in the UK until the Hungerford Massacre of 1986. It was even legal to own an AK47. You just needed a licence.

**olympia**

Actually I heard that the AG is only going to ban guns that are AP1 or AP2.

**chaplaingrabthar**

And after Hungerford in 86, Dunblane in 1996 led to the handgun ban that means that our Olympic team isn't even allowed to practice in the country (another ex-pat here)

**Da Boss**

In Ireland you can get shotguns and rifles for hunting fairly easily.
And the paramilitaries had a lot of automatic and other sorts of weapons, which have made their way into the hands of gangs now. But our gun problem is still pretty small. Smaller than the UK for example. We don't need routinely armed police, for an example.

**Frazzled**

olympia wrote:Actually I heard that the AG is only going to ban guns that are AP1 or AP2.

You can take my plasma gun when you pry from my crisped dead hands!

**Da Boss**

I said for example way too many times in that post. I blame my cold.
I'm actually a bit suprised to see this coming from the Obama administration, to my mind there are bigger issues to get in a fight over.

**Frazzled**

I'm not. They put that on their campaign site the week after the election.

**Da Boss**

Really?
I don't check these things. I should go have a look.
Cheers Frazzled.

**dietrich**

I wouldn't be shocked if it was a strategic decision to distract attention for less contenious but more important decisions.

**ShumaGorath**

When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns (also the police). This makes sense to me, since non hunting weapons are really only there to kill people. Which is illegal.

Its a fundamental right.

It's a nebulous and undefined right, which by the exact letter of the constitution would grant us all bear arms. I don't want to have to carry around a bears arms. The founding fathers didn't envisage every citizen owning a gatling gun, and a modern assault rifle is a hell of a lot better then one of those things. Where do arms end? Is owning a tank bearing arms? Can I have a turret on my lawn? Do I get to have a 50 caliber on the back of my sedan? Does rupert murdoch get to fly around in an apache?

Hunting weapons and pistols will never be illegal. You're FAMAS isn't protecting your family, it's just something for your kids to kill themselves with. Weapons of war should not be accessible to people that aren't going to war. If people can own machine guns why not make pipe bombs legal? They perform the same task. An explosive can be a form of armament.

**Frazzled**

When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns (also the police). This makes sense to me, since non hunting weapons are really only there to kill people. Which is illegal.

It makes sense that only criminals will have firearms? On what planet in the Milky Way Galaxy is that a good thing?

No its not nebulous

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.

**sexiest_hero**

Let everybody have Military grade weapons. Military grade assault arms are fun to shoot, and why carry a pistol to defend yourself when you can yank out an Uzi. Cances are a robber will have a small side arm or a single barrel shot gun. a double barrel or mangnum, will split him in half easy. An over ten clip in a simi is getting close to Military assault range weapons. All you have to do is look at Iraq a year and a half ago to see what a people can do to each other when arms go completely unchecked.

On the Obama issue gun control was a big issue in inner cities. Also a US president will constantly be puching doesens of things at once.

Now I belive in gun control, some don't. We can debate and reach some kind of agreement and not break down into a partisan flame war.

**ShumaGorath**

No its not nebulous

The hell its not. It hinges on the definition of arms, which is a multifaceted word.

arm2 [ahrm] Show IPA
–noun
1. Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.
2. arms, Heraldry. the escutcheon, with its divisions, charges, and tinctures, and the other components forming an achievement that symbolizes and is reserved for a person, family, or corporate body; armorial bearings; coat of arms.
–verb (used without object)
3. to enter into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.
–verb (used with object)
4. to equip with weapons: to arm the troops.
5. to activate (a fuze) so that it will explode the charge at the time desired.
6. to cover protectively.
7. to provide with whatever will add strength, force, or security; support; fortify: He was armed with statistics and facts.
8. to equip or prepare for any specific purpose or effective use: to arm a security system; to arm oneself with persuasive arguments.
9. to prepare for action; make fit; ready.
—Idioms
10. bear arms,
a. to carry weapons.
b. to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces: His religious convictions kept him from bearing arms, but he served as an ambulance driver with the Red Cross.
11. take up arms, to prepare for war; go to war: to take up arms against the enemy.
12. under arms, ready for battle; trained and equipped: The number of men under arms is no longer the decisive factor in warfare.
13. up in arms, ready to take action; indignant; outraged: There is no need to get up in arms over such a trifle.

Yeah, thats really cut and dry frazzled. Good call.

It makes sense that only criminals will have firearms? On what planet in the Milky Way Galaxy is that a good thing?

Earth actually, I don't want to live in the old west. As fun as sky high murder rates are I don't really think they are appropriate any more. You are not your brothers keeper, your AK does not reduce crime rates. No corollary study has ever linked a prevalence of guns to a reduction in crime rate or gun deaths. In fact most incidences of gun death and injury skyrocket with common access to weapons. I WONDER WHY. The right to bear arms was a safety to ensure the legality of state militias in an era where a strong national military was practically non existent, and was far from capable of defending the nation quickly or effectively on its own. You're not in a militia. We have the most powerful military on the earth.

**Da Boss**

Apparently population density, access to weapons and access to alchohol are three of the biggest factors.

**Frazzled**

sexiest_hero wrote:Let everybody have Military grade weapons. Military grade assault arms are fun to shoot, and why carry a pistol to defend yourself when you can yank out an Uzi. Cances are a robber will have a small side arm or a single barrel shot gun. a double barrel or mangnum, will split him in half easy. An over ten clip in a simi is getting close to Military assault range weapons. All you have to do is look at Iraq a year and a half ago to see what a people can do to each other when arms go completely unchecked.

The bad guys had automatic weapons. It goes to Dietrich's point. Restrict who can own firearms not the type.

On the Obama issue gun control was a big issue in inner cities. Also a US president will constantly be puching doesens of things at once.

And how many were using $1,000 semi auto AR 15 s again? How about put them in jail? They are already committing illegal activity.

Now I belive in gun control, some don't. We can debate and reach some kind of agreement and not break down into a partisan flame war.

1. I actually have more of an issue with the weapon restriction vs. the clip restriction. Semi auto rifles are just that-semi auto rifles. Its the clips that make them uber.
2. Having said that. No. To many there is no agreement. This is a fundamental right on the same order as the remaining nine amendments of the Bill of Rights.
Me myself? I would be ok with a limitation on clips to ten rounds.