The Town Hall Archives

Jared

We really needed a debate!

I'll get this started off by a few quick observations, then I expect everyone to give opinions, defend them well, attack opposing ones, scream at each other, etc...

First off, some definitions.

In the most technical sense, an assault weapon is a gun, usually a rifle, made infantry-style but intended for general use. Detractors sometimes call them sniper rifles.

Armor penetrating ammunition is bullets specifically designed to pierce bullet-proof vests.

The NRA (National Rifle Association) believes that under the second ammendment, which extends the right to bear arms, citizens should have access to both of the above.

Gun-control advocates would say that people don't need either. Or guns at all, for that matter, but let's just focus on the issues at hand.

When people think assault weapon, they usually think of things like AK-47s, but this class is more things like the more powerful Springfield and Bushman rifles. They have a longer range, more power and a higher accuracy than most other guns.

And I don't see any problems with that. There are a variety of good, acceptable uses of this gun that don't cross over legal lines. If the government bans powerful guns, what is to stop them from then taking away guns of the next level and the next? I know that this is a slippery slope argument, but I think it's valid. Everyone knows that gun-control advocates would not rest on their laurels after one victory but instead will press for more and more, only now with legal precedent behind them.

To me, though, armor-penetrating bullets are another issues entirely, as they aren't necessary for any regular activity. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think deer wear armor, so I don't think not having this type of bullets will hurt you in hunting. And before you try to explain to me that this is about the right to bear arms, not just go hunting, I absolutely agree. Guns are also needed for self-defense and obviously, that is by far the greater reason to have them. But only a few companies make bullet-proof vests and those are only sold to law enforcement and military personnel.

Could some technically get on the black market? I'm sure it could. But a man wearing such a vest would attract a lot of suspicion, his movements would be lessened, etc. I am not aware of any crime that ever involved a criminal wearing a bullet-proof vest.

So, really, the charge that bullets meant to penetrate these vests are "cop killer" bullets really isn't too far off. I don't think that those who own them for the most want to do that. Not at all. But what valid reason could there be for owning them?

Now I know that there have been many, even in the founding of this country, who would differ on this issue. I imagine that Thomas Jefferson, for one, would have favored these bullets, as he believed the supreme purpose of arms was to protect the individual from a tyranical government and preferably, keep the government from ever getting to that point.

I know some in favor may argue that a situation like that is just what these bullets are meant for, but I am uncomfortable with that position. And by the way, this government is far, far from tyranical.

The final reason for guns in private owneship is, technically, participation in the militia. Right now, I'm not too concerned with the threat of invasion of the United States by a foreign force and I think that our volunteer army can handle any threats, but if it comes to war on our soil and to the point of fighting with our own weapons (which I believe it never will), well, let the government hand out the armor-penetrating bullets.

For now, I just don't think we need them.

Elf of Rivendell · Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 8:02 am Post subject:

Right now I think that we need to wield guns for personal defense. Just because the government bans guns does not mean that the criminals would obey that law. But those bullets that penetrate the vests? I don't think so, since how many murderers just come at someone heavily armored? Yes, there might be some cases of that. But not very often, I think.

In my opinion, we should be allowed to own those "normal" guns.

That's what I think, plain and simple.

Coralfish · Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:50 am Post subject:

This is an interesting topic, and if I interpreted it correctly, you both would advocate the use or ownership of "assult weapons" but really see no imminent need for the armor penetrating ammunition?

My first point would be that I fully advocate and support personal gun ownership. It is part of our American heritage, a symbol of our rights(article 2: 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.) By prohibiting gun ownership, I believe we are not really prohibiting crime, but rather removing a piece of our freedom. I am not sure if there is disagreement on this point, but there it is.

As a gun owner (well not technically-my dad owns it, but I am the only one to use the gun) I see no need for something like armor-penetrating ammunition. However, to have the government prohibit the use of such ammunition would seem to me to be a small step in the direction of anti-gun laws. For instance: if they can prohibit the usage of one type of ammunition, why not another? if you cannot own x y or z type rifle or gun, why then should you be allowed to use the others? Perhaps I sound paranoid, but I think that once a certain type of ammunition/gun is prohibited, it leaves a prime opportunity for the remeval of others as well.

As for automatic rifles and machine guns etc. (which are currently prohibited), I see no problem as citizens are still allowed to keep and use semi-automatic weapons. And just to clarify: An automatic is a gun that continuously fires when you pull the trigger. A semi-automatic reguires one to pull the trigger for each individual shot fired.

In conclusion I will say, that while I see no reason for a citizens usage of armor-penetrating ammunition, to have the government completely prohibit it, would seem to me to be an unwise desision, and just one more step in the direction of anti-gun laws.

Jared · Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2003 12:06 pm Post subject:

Points well taken and to tell you the truth, I'm not all that solid in my position. On the one hand, I see no positive use for them, but on the other hand, I don't like the precedent it sets.

As per your brief mention of automatic weapons, sometimes I think that the police almost wish that those in the commission of a crime had autos instead of semi-auto or single shot. A friend my family's is a state trooper and head of the SWAT team here. I've seen him fire an automatic machine gun (M-5, I think... one of those Ms, but I can't say for sure that it was a -5) and he says that overall, the guns are very hard to control and are useless for picking off individual targets.

If a person is firing into a crowd, they are deadly. If a person is trying to shoot a single person, then, according to this officer at least, a full-auto machine gun is a poor choice of weaponry. A man with a Glock could easily out-gun a criminal with a machine gun.

As I said, I've seen him shoot the auto. He's very good with it, hitting quite a few of his targets at difficult range. But he ranks within the top 10 marksmen in the country and he misses some with the auto. I've never seen him miss with anything else.

But that was quite a sidetracking post...

Back to the main point: there are limits on just about everything and I really don't think that a ban on a questionable type of ammunition is going to lead to the revoke of the right to bear arms. It is recognized legally as a special case by executive order.

Technically, while it's the law of the land by order of the president (it's been renewed by each incoming president for quite a while), it is not congressional law or judicial understanding of such law, so it would have very little to no effect on the reasoning of the justices in a court of law. Even an amicus brief by the president is not in the least legally binding. The most a court could ever take this law as is that the president doesn't believe that such bullets are necessary. And if courts listened to the president, well, we wouldn't be reading about the silly antics of the Ninth Circuit Court every other week.

On another somewhat side note: did you know that under the Bush (41, not the current president) and Clinton administrations, the justice department interpreted the Second Amendment to only be applicable to the military? Sure, anti-gun people argue that all the time, but for those twelve years, that was the official DOJ interpretation, meaning that the right to bear arms was actually considered unenumerated in the Constitution and could be put to a simple majority vote in any statehouse. Fortunately, at this point, no group of state representatives were anywhere near able to do that and if they had done so, the Supreme Court which, though liberal leaning at this juncture, generally recognizes the right to bear arms, would have struck down the law under judicial review. But those administrations started to pave a way...

Thankfully, the current President Bush upholds the right to bear arms. The Justice Department under Ashcroft has reaffirmed that the second amendment specifically speaks to the right of people, not just the military, to bear arms.

But I really did get off-topic.

rosie · Inquisitive Member Joined: 07 Jan 2003 Posts: 1197

The Top Crusader · Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2003 12:09 am Post subject:

I want to be able to have any type of weapon I want, for the simple fact that ya never know what kind of crazies you might be going up against, and quite frankly, I don't trust the government a whole lot, either.

tim · Somewhat Aging Member Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Posts: 300

People need assault rifles to hunt deer like they need grenades to go fishing.

The only purpose an assault rifle has is to kill people. This is an assault rifle. It fires 800 rounds per minute. A little overkill when it comes to deer hunting, isn't it?

And as far as personal protection goes - use a handgun. Life isn't a movie. People don't suck up lead like water in a sponge before getting the message that you aren't worth the trouble.

Now, about armor-piercing bullets... why not? Body armor won't protect you from the assault rifles that people will be toting around anyways (and the high-cal handguns that many people already have). It's also worth noting that generally, your average hunting rifle will pierce standard issue armor worn by the police. And on that note, yes, you can buy body armor. Quite easily, in fact.

As a Canadian, of course, I don't have the right to carry a handgun, or an assault rifle. I'm perfectly fine with that, as I haven't seen any reason to believe that being able to carry a gun lowers crime rates.

But if somebody offered me a Beretta AR-70/90? I'd take it Twisted Evil

hendonblue · Guest

hawkeye · Posted: Tue May 20, 2003 7:59 pm Post subject:

Ok. I would agree that generally people dont need assult rifles or armor penatrating bullets, but let me point out body armor can only cover so much, and a shotgun will render the armor useless... And that is excluding the spread of the shot.

But, most police officers will tell you they are more concerned about a knife than they are any gun, as a knife can do far more damage, and most body armor is useless to stop it.

The difference, is the distance. Knives only work from a few feet away, while guns work from yards away, and assult rifles from dozens to hundreds of yards away. Well, I think if your going after someone, you should be able to at least see them

My view is that I see no need for people except military and police/swat to have it, but making it illegal is rather pointless. Certainly it should not be freely available, but it shouldnt be illegal either.

And Tim, take the mind set of a criminal or bully for a moment. would you mess with someone who could kill you or injure you big time if you knew beforehand? A criminal is going to think twice before bothering someone or breaking into a house if there is a possibility they could get shot, perhapse fatally. And if the homeowner knows where to hide in the house, or the lights are off, then the intruder is a sitting duck even with a gun. On the street, say in the car, criminals usually dont want too much attenion, so in most cases, the innocent having a gun is a major deterent for criminals who value their life. Also, not being sure if the person has a gun or not has the same effect. And in Texas, the crime rate is very low. Reason? Becaue many people own guns, carry them around, and for the rare instance the government has to intervene, it is a bit strict in its punishment.

And as for that mace and those alarms and tasers, they do work, but not as much as a gun.

Jared · Posted: Tue May 20, 2003 8:29 pm Post subject:

The Assault Weapons Ban, which is about to expire, did not ban AK-47s. In fact, it did not ban ANY automatic rifles, as they have been illegal for private use since 1934... and I support that nearly seventy year-old ban.

The Assault Weapons Ban, however, ended the use of regular long barrel rifles and was considered the stepping stone to banning all guns not deemed basic hunting weapons.

Janet Reno used to always affirm the Clinton administration's support for hunting... but not for private ownership of other guns. That would seem to be the goal at hand: slowly but surely eliminate all but the hunting rifles, effectually putting an end to the right to self defense.

The second amendment gives the right to bear arms, not to hunt deer. (Not that there's anything wrong with deer hunting, but you get the point.) The liberals miss (or, more likely, purposely ignore) the true intent of the amendment.

The so-called assault weapons are not more powerful or more accurate than other weapons left on the market by the ban. It was a purely political move made ten years ago to chip away at gun rights. I'm glad that it will not be renewed.

A while back, I had to write something on guns for an assignment. It was meant to be a propaganda piece, which doesn't at all make it less accurate but changes the focal points of the argument (I covered things that I think were lesser points and didn't cover things I thought would have made good points in order to hit the major elements of that style). Also, much of the argument was that the founders intended guns to be legal for regular citizens, not as much an argument of why that is a good thing (although a sizable portion of the short paper IS devoted to that portion of the issue). Still, it may be of interest to some. Here it is:

---------------------------

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.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines the world militia an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. Some liberals would take this to mean that only those in the military are permitted to own firearms, but the word militia means exactly the opposite: all people. The founders, living in a time where they feared a rematch with Great Britain (which was manifested in the War of 1812), envisioned an army of the people, but a careful reading of the amendment reveals that they extended the right of gun ownership much farther than this narrow meaning, saying it was the right of the people to keep and bear arms – something that “shall not be infringed.”

The Bill of Rights is not a document concerning the rights of the army or the government. Those first ten amendments to the Constitution are to defend the rights of ordinary Americans: among them the right to a fair and speedy trial by jury, the right to speak without fear of a government reaction and yes, the right to keep and bear arms.

George Mason, a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, addressed those assembled in the Virginia Statehouse for the purpose of ratifying the newly drafted Constitution, saying, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

In fact, the founders were quite adamant that guns be permitted in the newly founded nation. George Washington said that "a free people ought...to be armed,” and Richard Henry Lee, grandfather of the Confederate General and an important figure in the post-revolution years, wrote, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Patrick Henry proclaimed, “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun,” while our second president, John Adams, agreed, saying, “Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense.” Pro-gun sentiment was so high, in fact, that according to President Washington, “the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.”

The founders of our country, the signers of our constitution, the Presidents, Senators and Representatives and the people of the newly formed nation all agreed: it was the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, many, especially in more recent years, have attempted to portray the founders as opposed to the private ownership of firearms, stating that the founders could never have imagined the second amendment would be “twisted” to allow ordinary citizens a right they only meant to afford to the military.

There are those who would argue that guns are unsafe. However, recent studies prove guns absolutely necessary, despite the rants of anti-gun protesters. Deranged gun control groups took a big hit after the terrorist attacks on America. So many Americans suddenly realized the significance of the right to self-defense after September 11th. Many bought guns.

Today, many states have passed right-to-carry laws. Florida was one of the first states that voted to adopt this law under the leadership of its Republican-controlled legislature. Anti-second amendment activists complained, but the statistics from Florida are enough to silence even the most ardent critic. In the years since Florida adopted these laws, the overall rate of crime decreased significantly, the homicide rate decreasing by 36 percent at a time when the overall U.S. rate decreased by less than half a percent. In states that did not adopt right-to-carry legislation, the overall homicide rate actually increased significantly.

Liberals would have us to believe that crimes committed using firearms would explode in number after right-to-carry laws were adopted, but once again, the statistics from Florida prove them wrong. Overall, homicides committed using firearms decreased by 37 percent in Florida at a time when the overall rate for all fifty states increased by fifteen percent!

Of course, guns can kill, but the rate of firearm accidents encompasses 1.5 of all fatal accidents. Motor vehicles result in the death of more than thirty times as many people, but there have been so serious attempts to ban our principle mode of transportation. We ask why not? Why the double standard? Accidents do happen, but accidents involving guns rate extremely low on the list of causes of fatal accidents and serve to protect far more frequently than they serve to inflict injury.

Forty-four states specifically enumerate the right to bear arms in their state constitutions, while the others, while not specifically covering the issue, make provision for self-defense. No states have laws on the books forbidding the ownership of guns.

Until more recent years, the legality and propriety of gun ownership was rarely questioned. Now an issue of contention between conservatives and liberals, it was once jointly agreed that the right to bear arms was one which should not be infringed.

According to former Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-Minnesota), commenting on the issue at a time when the Democratic Party’s position was beginning to sway from their former pro-gun position, "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Historically, countries that forbid the ownership of guns have been tyrannies, as unarmed masses are powerless to stop an out-of-control government. Under Stalin, the former Soviet Union clamped down on gun rights. And as the rights of the citizens decreased, Stalin’s power increased. Joseph Stalin, one of the most brutal dictators in recent history, thrived in a country where the citizens were unarmed.

When the Nazi party came to power in Germany under Chancellor Adolf Hitler, firearms were confiscated and ownership became a crime. In the words of SS Leader Heinrich Himmler, “Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA—ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the state.” Hitler was definitely in agreement, declaring in and edict that, quote, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

And he was correct, as in an armed society, the citizenry would possess the power to revolt. “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits … and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction,” according to a Virginia Supreme Court ruling of 1803.

Federal law has at no time forbidden the ownership of guns, nor at any time has a court interpreted a law to mean such. In 1878, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that "to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."

Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on the ownership of handguns, the worst encroachment of gun rights thus far in U.S. history. During that period, violent crime in the district increased by more than 200 percent, a percentage that has been significantly reduced since the legislation was repealed in 1991.

The American people use firearms to defend themselves from criminals over 760,000 times each year. The number of firearms legally owned in this country is about 200-240 million and out of about 281 million citizens, only about 60-65 million – a little under a third of adult non-felons in this country – actually own a gun. The number of handguns in this country ranges from 75-80 million; only 30-35 million people own a handgun and far fewer carry them. Around 11 percent of gun owners and around 13 percent of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection against criminals, even as very few actually carry their guns. Imagine if the ordinary citizen owned and carried a gun. If that were true, the number of crimes committed would diminish greatly. Violent crime would virtually disappear!

Between 1977 and 1992, ten states adopted right-to-carry laws. A study conducted by Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School conducted using data for all 3,045 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992 found that the implementation of these laws resulted in a five percent decline in rape, a seven percent decline in aggravated assaults and an eight percent decline in murder. While these numbers may not immediately sound impressive, think of the individual lives saved due to this legislation. Because of these laws, there are 316 fewer murders, 939 fewer rapes and 14,702 fewer aggravated assaults annually.

Advertently or not, those who advocate gun control are essentially advocating the founding of a tyrannical government and a dramatic increase in violent crimes in America.