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.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Yeah, the silly thing with these laws is that pistols kill far more people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime_related_to_guns

chaos0xomega wrote:
I wonder if anyone has pointed out to them that more people have died, and indeed more "mass shootings" (using the new politically correct definition of "3 or more casualties" or whatever it is) have occured as a result of handguns and "hunting/sport rifles" than "assault weapons".

Oh, but that would be inconvenient because those dont look scary enough.

I think the point is that assault rifles are capable of killing far more people in less time than pistols. Basically, if there is a guy going nuts and deciding he wants to go out to a school and shoot some random kids, better he is armed with a pistol than with an assault rifle. Isn't that the reasoning behind banning assault rifles?

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, but despite the outsized media attention to those events, they really aren't significant numerically in the number of gun homicides. They're the equivalent of an occasional shot glass of water into a bucket, where there is a nonstop drip that fills the rest of it up over time.

Rocket launchers, artillery guns and machine guns are all banned right? Yet they are not significant in the number of homicides at all? Than why ban them?
Because of their potential of causing harm, right? Than why should assault weapons not be included in this list?

 djones520 wrote:
While I get your point of view Stanman, protection for the police/military/etc should not at all enter the equation when discussing the 2nd Amendment.

The primary purpose the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution was to ensure that the populace had a means to combat those people should it come down to it.

When we allow the government to restrict that, we are just giving the government that much more power over us.

Do you really think this 2nd amendment will make any difference in the case of civil war or revolution in the US? There have been plenty of peoples who brought down their governments without a right to bear arms. The key in such a situation is military support. If the rebels can get a significant part of the military on their side, they have a good chance of succes. We see this in Ukraine, Syria and Lybia, where the core of the rebel forces are defected military. Civilians simply are no match for an organised military force, those light weapons won't help you. To fight a government requires heavy weapons: tanks, aircraft, artillery and such. The 2nd amendment comes from a time when the heaviest weapons were muskets and 12lb cannons. It is meaningless in the modern era.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
While I get your point of view Stanman, protection for the police/military/etc should not at all enter the equation when discussing the 2nd Amendment.

The primary purpose the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution was to ensure that the populace had a means to combat those people should it come down to it.

When we allow the government to restrict that, we are just giving the government that much more power over us.

Do you really think this 2nd amendment will make any difference in the case of civil war or revolution in the US? There have been plenty of peoples who brought down their governments without a right to bear arms. The key in such a situation is military support. If the rebels can get a significant part of the military on their side, they have a good chance of succes. We see this in Ukraine, Syria and Lybia, where the core of the rebel forces are defected military. Civilians simply are no match for an organised military force, those light weapons won't help you. To fight a government requires heavy weapons: tanks, aircraft, artillery and such. The 2nd amendment comes from a time when the heaviest weapons were muskets and 12lb cannons. It is meaningless in the modern era.

Well, the 2nd amendment was assuming there wouldn't be a disparity in armament. So technically we should be allowed to have any weaponry we want, up to and including armed aircraft and tanks.

Than why is owning tanks, warplanes and other heavy weaponry not allowed in the US? Clearly that is a violation of the Constitution than? And if it is okay to ban heavy weapons, why shouldn't it also be okay to ban assault weapons?

 Grey Templar wrote:
To say it wouldn't help is completely wrong. An armed civilian population is a significant threat. Hence why most dictatorships don't like their subjects having weaponry of any kind.

Almost no state, Western democracies as well as dictatorships, likes people having weaponry of any kind (Switzerland and the US being exceptions). Outside of the US, it is widely believed that violence, and therefore weapons, should be the monopoly of the state.
As for dictatorships, they fear opposing ideas much more than weapons. Ideas are more powerful than guns. Free speech and thought are the most important things seperating democracy from dictatorship, not a right to bear arms.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Somehow, the people of Canada have learned to get by, without needing to carry a gun at all times.

We don't carry because we need to. We carry because we want to.

Wasn't one argument that you need guns to ensure you are safe from the government?

Yep. And it is a valid argument, which is why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill Of Rights. When we, as a nation, determine it is not valid we have mechanisms in the Constitution to amend that Amendment.

The right to self defense is considered a universal right to us, and is not dependent of the 'who' or 'what' you have a right to defend yourself from. The 2nd Amendment ensures citizens may possess the tools for their defense.

Than why can't you have fighter jets and warships? Full-automatic machine guns? Surely all of that also falls under the 2nd Amendment.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I believe guns are necessary for preserving freedom.
Any other reason is just icing on the cake.
If the purpose of guns is to fight against enemies foreign or domestic then we should be on as equal terms as possible. Limiting guns to bolt actions would defeat the purpose of the 2A.
And yes, I hold my rights as sacred.
The right to free speech is sacred to me.
The right to practice my religion is sacred to me.
The right to free assembly is sacred to me.
Rights are "Granted" by the Constitution, they're supposed to be protected by it.

Edit. This article sums up my opinion.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

If that is indeed the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I would argue that its purpose has already been defeated because heavy and full-automatic weaponry has already been banned. What actual, practical purpose does the 2nd Amendment now serve, and is this purpose in any way affected by the proposed ban?
What is the difference between full-auto machineguns, semi-auto assault weapons and bolt-action weapons that a line should be drawn at the one, but not the other? In other words, why has the US drawn a line at full-automatic weapons, and why should this line not be extended to assault weapons? All arguments in this thread I have seen so far against this ban, could equally apply to the ban on full-automatic or even heavy weaponry. So to the people who oppose this ban, do you think that all weapons should be legalised in the US because of the 2nd Amendment? And if not, why draw the line where you do?