Well, no need to worry...
"Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986."
From your link...
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
Rather than arguing over the definition of assault rifle, I think we should address the issue of why such guns should be banned. There is no rational reason for assuming that civilians shouldn't have a semi-automatic rifle, in particular if police and military are allowed to have them. (As someone noted earlier, people have a right to defend themselves against the government if it becomes necessary.) For that matter, there's not an ounce of evidence that banning assault rifles makes anyone 'safer.' It's purely a matter of paranoia about guns that are scary looking. I'm not going to touch the subject of fully automatic rifles given that 1. They're heavily regulated and very difficult to obtain and 2. You can count the number of murders caused by legally owned automatic rifles for the past 90 years or so on one hand.
On a related note, the idea that Canada has less rapes than the US is false.
Last edited by Dark Star; 04-23-2012 at 06:32 PM.
And let me conceal my amazement that Bien is pro-gun (pro-gun Christians, one of America's greatest ironies).
Christian fundamentalists tend to be full of contradictions. They see abortion as an abomination, but once you're born, it's another story altogether. They often take the Neo-Con position on universal health care, ignoring the millions whose lives are affected by the lack of insurance. They are also quite commonly pro-gun and pro-death penalty.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
In terms if guns, I am fully in agrement with The american constitution, your founding fathers were great men and realized that laws must be created not to protect the state from its people, but protect people from the state.
Do you honestly think this has any bearing at this point in time? How long do you think a populace armed with handguns and rifles could hold out against the full forces of the US military?
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Ask Al Qaeda that question. Guerrilla warfare is particularly effective, even when the side engaging in those tactics are under-armed compared to the opposition. For that matter, it's not rational to essentially argue, 'Well, **** it, we're going to lose, so we may as well give up our right to defend ourselves!'
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
Rather than arguing over the definition of assault rifle, I think we should address the issue of why such guns should be banned. There is no rational reason for assuming that civilians shouldn't have a semi-automatic rifle, in particular if police and military are allowed to have them.
Yes... and let's not stop there. Let's take this to the logical conclusion. Why aren't citizens allowed to own fully functioning tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear warheads? The government has them. I can't feel truly safe until I have one too.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Again, provide an ounce of evidence that assault rifles should be banned instead of just using 'OOOOH, THOSE GUNS LOOK SCARY' fear tactics, and you might have a case. (Good luck. A team assembled by Bill Clinton to prove that the assault weapons ban was a Good Thing was not able to find evidence that it saved so much as a single life. The latest attempt by the Obama administration to prove the need for an assault weapons ban by forcing gun shops to sell to straw buyers so the guns could be sent to Mexico didn't work out well, either.) If you wish for something to be banned, the onus is on you to give reasons why it should be banned, not just assume it should be and act as if anyone who doesn't like the idea of giving up their rights or privileges is insane.
Ask Al Qaeda that question. Guerrilla warfare is particularly effective, even when the side engaging in those tactics are under-armed compared to the opposition.
Is it really... or is it only effective if the Guerrillas are particularly driven to continue the fight... in spite of their losses, while the other side is not willing to employ the full capabilities of their forces (as a result of political pressure) and not willing to accept excessive losses? How long would the war in Iraq have lasted had the US employed the same strategies as WWII: carpet bombing, the complete obliteration of cities, etc...?
Of course what you are arguing in favor of is what we term as "terrorism" when employed by Al Qaeda, Hamas, the PLO, or the Irish.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
It's what I believe. I don't think people should have assault rifles. I see nothing wrong with people having a reasonable amount of handguns or hunting rifles/shotguns. An assault rifle's main purpose is to be a better killing instrument than your average gun. The average gun is enough--it's good enough at killing people.
If you wish for something to be banned, the onus is on you to give reasons why it should be banned, not just assume it should be and act as if anyone who doesn't like the idea of giving up their rights or privileges is insane.
Where in the constitution is the right to bear fully automatic weapons, tanks, jet fighters, or nuclear weapons spelled out? The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are documents that are 200+ years old. They were written based upon the world as it then existed. That not specifically spelled out in the Constitution and the Bill of rights is dealt with by the body of laws at a federal, state, and local level. Common sense is usually enough reason for limiting, restricting, or banning any number of things ranging from the Smallpox virus, and Anthrax, to Heroin, Crack Cocaine, Plutonium, Uranium, child pornography, or machine guns and other fully automatic weapons.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Ha, ha. From an outside perspective (of the US) to hear people in favour of "a reasonable amount of handguns" or that the onus is on other people to prove that "assault rifles" should be banned, is really quite hard to put into words how crazy all of that sounds.
Imagine someone genuinely arguing for the continuation of personal weapons of mass destruction/chemical weapons and you have about the same idea of how I feel when I see such often repeated thoughts, in regards to the US affinity with guns.
I saw a stat the other day, in the Guardian I think, that said for every 100 Americans there are 90 guns!?!
I'm not passing judgment. I just thought I'd share an outsider perspective on the argument, hope you don't mind? Take it or leave it. But it is all a bit crazy to me.
I tend to agree with StLukes when it comes to the constitutional issue (now I'll let you all conceal your amazement). One of the principle ideas of the constitution is that it was meant to be able to change. If it wasn't, blacks would still be seen as three-fifths of a person. Not everything written then is applicable to today. I can't help but think a lot of them would've rethunk the vague wording if the "arms" of the day weren't limited to muzzle-loaded muskets.
I'm not one of those all-guns-should-be-banned people, but, come on, let's use some common sense here. A person doesn't need a ton of guns. If one wants a handgun for the house to protect himself and his family, fine. Same with hunting. I don't think someone should have 30 guns, or some more extravagant number.
Last edited by Mutatis-Mutandis; 04-23-2012 at 07:08 PM.