Just thought I need to wake up a few of you here

[nthach]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...859EST0145.DTL

taking weapons bans a bit too far...

IMHO, San Francisco is probably doing this to help cut down on gang violence, but i think they forgot that gangs can still get guns off the black market. There are many responsible people who keep guns, just the ones who use then as an instrument in an crime are ruining for everyone else.

[mmarshall]

In virtually all cases in the U.S., when gun ownership goes DOWN, crime....especially murders...... goes UP. You want to increase crime, take the guns away. You want to drop the crime rate, let people carry guns and defend themselves. It's as simple as that.....SO simple and effective a rule.......... that I wonder why it is even being debated in the first place.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by mmarshall

In virtually all cases in the U.S., when gun ownership goes DOWN, crime....especially murders...... goes UP. You want to increase crime, take the guns away. You want to drop the crime rate, let people carry guns and defend themselves. It's as simple as that.....SO simple and effective a rule.......... that I wonder why it is even being debated in the first place.

Well gun ownership is one thing, allowing people to have all out assault weapons that are best reserved for the DMZ is another. There is no rhyme or reason to gun laws or how it is debated. And the reason it gets discussed is because of things like the California Bank Heist a few years back where it took them hours to subdue 2 guys in full body armour and a trunk full of killing machines that your everyday handgun was useless against.

Lewis and Clark are no longer exploring the Lousiana Purchase and too many people take the concept of the "Right to Bear Arms" out of context. They always forget the last half of the sentence which is something to the effect of "against militia who raise their arms against the US". Not the Right to Bear Arms when you need a pack of cigarettes at your local 7-11.

Unfortunately I doubt there will ever be any sensible reforms related to guns.

[morris]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Well gun ownership is one thing, allowing people to have all out assault weapons that are best reserved for the DMZ is another. There is no rhyme or reason to gun laws or how it is debated. And the reason it gets discussed is because of things like the California Bank Heist a few years back where it took them hours to subdue 2 guys in full body armour and a trunk full of killing machines that your everyday handgun was useless against.

Lewis and Clark are no longer exploring the Lousiana Purchase and too many people take the concept of the "Right to Bear Arms" out of context. They always forget the last half of the sentence which is something to the effect of "against militia who raise their arms against the US". Not the Right to Bear Arms when you need a pack of cigarettes at your local 7-11.

Unfortunately I doubt there will ever be any sensible reforms related to guns.

First off define what an assault weapon is. Secondly full auto weapons have been illegal for some time now at the federal level without special licensing. So those criminals were already violating existing laws what good would additional laws have done, they would of just violatedthose as well.

If you read the second ammendment it doesnt say anything about who you are allowed to bear arms against..

Well here, FYI

"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."

[ebruce2]

agreed that such legislation is taking things too far...

What really makes me laugh is the fact that these people actually think they can solve a litney of problems without getting to the root of them. Why not take into account the REASONS for homicides in their area rather than the IMPLEMENT used to commit them. Let's see..... poverty, breakdown of the family, failing education systems, drug abuse, socio-economic oppression, etc. Why not work on these root causes rather than make an attempt to take honest, hard,working peoples right to bear arms away from them? A gun is not the CAUSE of a homicide, just the tool used to get the job done.

[WhiteTiger]

Morris, I will have to look further when I get time to confirm to myself that what you posted is the full text of the 2nd Amendment.. I remembered seeing something different a few years back. Anyway, here is an excerpt from one of the cases listed at one of the 2nd Amendment websites that refers to the militia issue and attempts to clarify the meaning of this Amendment.

In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.''

And Morris, yes assault weapons (fully auto) are illegal as you have noted and I agree that many of the laws that we currently have are useless. From what I understand, at gun shows these auto weapons are slightly altered using a "pin" or something to change the way they fire in order to classify them as something legal but the people that buy them can also get the instructions on how to change them using some inexpensive parts that are readily available. These loopholes should be closed since it just provides a way for them to change a semi-auto weapon into one that is fully automatic.

I'm not advocating the elimination of guns, have a .32 or some other handgun is fine, AK-47's, M-16's etc are another story though. I am not a gun expert but I do believe that weapons that can be easily converted to fully automatic status should not be available to the general public IMO.

ebruce2 raises some excellent points but either undertaking (gun laws and the societal issues that impact gun violence) are extremely complex issues that won't be solved anytime soon IMO.

[morris]

While there are a few firearms that are relatively easily converted, most are not. ( This has been a fallacy perpetuated by the media to a large extent) But any semiautomatic firearm can with the right knowldedge be made into a full auto firearm. So according to your logic, we would have to ban all semiauto weapons to be truly "safe".

Lawyer types have been twisting the language of the second amendment to mean all sorts of things (both sides to some extent). But when I read it using a laymans eyes, which is who the document is written for, it is pretty plain to me. I know what a militia is, it was and is any able body adult male. If you read other writings of the founding fathers, particlarly Jefferson, it is clear to me that the ammendment ws put there to protect the people from overbearing and tyrannical Government.

My biggest problem is that these laws are just stupid because the only ones that obey them are law abiding citizens. Criminals could care less how many laws they are, afteralll they are criminals which by definnition means they have no problem violating the law.


The bullet that an AK or an M16 fires is no more deadly than the same bullet fired out of your dads deer rifle, so againn where is the logic.

Ps AK and M16 are not currently approved for civillian ownership without special licensing and taxes. What you are probably reffering to is the civilian version of these rifles which again are semioutmatic like tons of hunting rifles.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by morris

So according to your logic, we would have to ban all semiauto weapons to be truly "safe".

Yes, what purpose does a semi-auto gun serve that couldn't be accomplished by a gun that isn't semi-auto? I just don't see the need for any type of automatic guns in the hands of John Q Public.

Originally Posted by morris

The bullet that an AK or an M16 fires is no more deadly than the same bullet fired out of your dads deer rifle, so again where is the logic.

I don't think the people that have died or had family die due to these types of weapons would agree. Yes, the individual bullet is the same but fully or semi auto weapons allow you to kill more people in a shorter period of time. You are not going to convince me that something that shoots 20, 30, 40 rounds (or whatever they shoot) is not less dangerous than a pistol? Especially when someone is using it to fire into a crowd. Once the spinner is out of the six bullets he has to stop and re-load, making it much less efficient and less deadly overall.

Besides where is the sport in hunting when you can just unleash a magazine clip at an animal rather than having to aim and fire with a non-semi auto rifle. To me that isn't sport.

[morris]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Yes, what purpose does a semi-auto gun serve that couldn't be accomplished by a gun that isn't semi-auto? I just don't see the need for any type of automatic guns in the hands of John Q Public.




I don't think the people that have died or had family die due to these types of weapons would agree. Yes, the individual bullet is the same but fully or semi auto weapons allow you to kill more people in a shorter period of time. You are not going to convince me that something that shoots 20, 30, 40 rounds (or whatever they shoot) is not less dangerous than a pistol? Especially when someone is using it to fire into a crowd. Once the spinner is out of the six bullets he has to stop and re-load, making it much less efficient and less deadly overall.

Besides where is the sport in hunting when you can just unleash a magazine clip at an animal rather than having to aim and fire with a non-semi auto rifle. To me that isn't sport.

Its not about sport or hunting so that argument is not applicable. The founding fathers never said anything about hunting or sport.

Waving an wand isnt going to remove semiaoutomatic firearms from the countyr. Whyat it will do is take it away from upstanding citizens and leave us at the mercy of criminals.

Oh an all firearms are limited to a 10 round magazine by law which is maybe 4 more buillets than a revolver.

But what I really dont understand is who are "you" (not specicially you) to tell me what I need and dont need. I mean you could then say that a 500hp car is dangerous to the public and no one should have one. What happened to let me do what I want and youy do what you want as long as we dont infringe upon one another.

But any way we are moving away froom the second amendment and into aditional legislation which I dont think was the orginal topic.

[WhiteTiger]

I think you misunderstood my question. I was asking why is there a need for semi automatic weapons? Not that it won't remove them from the streets or that hunting is the issue, that's not my point. Rather what positive purpose does a semi-auto provide that a pistol couldn't under the "Right to Bear Arms" argument? Many of these weapons didn't exist nor were they probably even contemplated when the 2nd Amendment was written, correct?

I don't disagree that limiting semi-auto weapons will initially place the public at a disadvantage since only criminals will have them. But outside that specific argument I don't see this limiting anyone's ability to Bear Arms. And do we just keep having an arms race as the technology increases? Where does it end?

You mention that a clip will only hold 10 shots (legally) but can't people modify them or get some black market clips that hold more than 10 shots with little legal repercussion unless they get caught (which is probably rare)?

And I don't buy the 500 HP car argument, looking at the big picture, it just deflects discussion away from the gun issue. Cars are cars, guns are guns, each issue should be dealt with separately. Unfortunately all too often, people use both to infringe upon the rights of others.

[morris]

Ed, its been a pleasure sparring with you.

[Overclocker]

"San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city..." and Dianne Feinstein.

[DaveGS4]

Originally Posted by nthach

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...859EST0145.DTL

taking weapons bans a bit too far...

NTHatch,

Please read the rules at the top of the forum regarding 'one liner' posts. You've added just enough to save the post, please contribute your thoughts.

1) No more 'one link / one liner' threads. This means the person starting the post must put a little more effort into explaining their personal position or thoughts around a subject than simply posting a link to another forum or quoting some far left or right wing news source. We will lock or delete any threads that begin that way... if it's worth debating, the thread starter needs to spend more time introducing the topic than pushing the paste button.

[mmarshall]

Originally Posted by ebruce2

Why not take into account the REASONS for homicides in their area rather than the IMPLEMENT used to commit them. Let's see..... poverty, breakdown of the family, failing education systems, drug abuse, socio-economic oppression, etc. Why not work on these root causes rather than make an attempt to take honest, hard,working peoples right to bear arms away from them? A gun is not the CAUSE of a homicide, just the tool used to get the job done.

The problem with this approach is that it incorrectly puts the blame for crime and homicides on society and for material reasons rather than moral reasons. It also fails to take into account that many murders are committed by rich people............and the sons and daughters of rich people.

Look at Scott Peterson....a perfect example. He certainly wasn't materially poor. He did not lack for secular education. His family did not break down.......in fact, it was GROWING at the time.....Laci was pregnant. He had a job. A house. A car. He was not a drug addict (that we know of) He just had a BIG moral problem, that's all..........the character and mind of a sewer rat.