On Nov 15, 2008, at 6:58 PM, Christian Brunschen wrote: > On 15 Nov 2008, at 20:36, Roger Howard wrote: > > [ snippage ] > >> I have absolutely no problem with responsible private ownership of >> weapons, not only for hunting, but for fun and for self-defense. >> However, if I were arming myself to protect my home, I cannot imagine >> wanting to use an AK-74, or even an AR-15 knockoff. I see no real use >> for these weapons *except* high intensity combat, or perhaps for fun.
Home defense with an AR-15 is perfect. >> >> >> Do focused gun bans stop violence? No, obviously not. Does it mean we >> should not regulate weapons sales at all? That seems to be the >> disagreement. I see the balance of risk vs. reward being against >> private sales of assault weapons, just as I see it workng against >> sales of cheap, low-quality, crime-oriented zip guns. > > Personally, I don't like guns. However, I can understand the > philosophy behind the 2nd amendment, and I'm not even going to > particularly disagree with it. > > But I also think that handling and use of guns should be regulated, > at least in the same way that handling and use of another dangerous > yet widely available item is regulated: Motor vehicles. In my > opinion, if there is a general permission to on weapons (such as > provided by the 2nd amendment), then because they are dangerous, > handling and using them should require a license much in the same > way as handling and using a car or similar does. Different classes > of weapons should of course require different classes of license > (handgun != rifle, similarly as motorcycle != car). Handling a gun > without a suitable license, or handling it in an unsafe manner, > could lead to the restriction or revocation of a license. This, of > course, includes things like deliberately using a gun to commit a > crime. > > I also think that having a registry of gun ownership, much like the > current registry of car ownership, is a good idea; but there, I am > aware of the objection that since the purpose of the second > amendment is to arm the populace against a corrupt government, > giving such a corrupt government a handy list of exactly who owns > which guns is counter-productive. > > Note that this above thinking of mine doesn't say anything about not > making available licenses for certain classes of weapons; say, > assault rifles, however you choose to define those. In order to fit > in with the second amendment, any licences would have to be made > available in a non-discriminatory fashion, and that includes cost > (other than the actual costs of testing the applicant's proficiency > & safety in handling the class of weapon in question) and any > artificial restrictions on which classes of weapons it is possible > to get licenses for. > > Thoughts? For real assault weapons we have exactly the laws in place to do what you describe to the n'th degree. Let's say you want to own a full auto UZI machine gun. (A 'real' assault weapon by any standard) Actually, you can. All you have to do is this. (Assuming you live in a free state where it is allowed.. ) 1. Fill out the forms for a Class III firearms license and pay $300.00 (This is to cover the cost of a full FBI background check) 2. Once you have that.. Go shopping and pick out your machine gun. Wait. You can't take it home yet. Your dealer then prepares Form 4 paperwork, which you will sign and also have signed by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your locale (Sheriff, Chief of Police, State Police Chief, etc.). You return the completed Form 4's to the dealer, along with (2) passport size photos, (2) fingerprint cards, (1) citizenship proof, and a transfer tax check made payable to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the one time per item transfer tax. A $200.00 transfer tax applies to Short BBL Shotguns, Short BBL Rifles, Machine Guns and Suppressors. (That does mean that if you want a silencer, really a suppressor, for your UZI you have to pay anadditional $200 transfer tax for it too.. Pause for a moment and think about how many law enforcement folks have looked at your request BEFORE you get the gun. This paperwork is mailed to BATF and when this transfer clears you go pick up your gun. (yet MORE law enforcement folks looking at you and now the BATF knows about YOU personally.) The bare minimum cost is $500.00 + the cost of the firearm the first time around. $200 + the next time and about a month of "wait" time, if you are lucky A nice full auto UZI goes for around $8500.00 these days (in the US, because of the ban on import, full auto anything is rare.) So any old guy that has $9000 dollars laying around and no record of anything worse than speeding can have one after the BATF and the FBI go up his butt with a microscope. What else could you possibly want done to to be sure that the person buying an assault weapon is likely not going to use it illegally[1]? I absolutely cannot imagine what additional restriction to ownership anyone could add short of a simple full ban.. When you hear the politicians talking about the AWB. keep what I just typed in mind. Now. UGLY guns that LOOK like assault weapons is what the AWB covers. This is not a banned gun under the old AWB <http://www.varmintextreme.com/?dir_cat=38507> This rifle is a .223 caliber hunting rifle, semi-auto, 10 round magazine. It will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger JUST LIKE my bushmaster. The .223 is exactly the same caliber fired by an AR-15 like my bushmaster and has the same stopping power and body armor-penetration capability. There is no appreciable difference except the looks between that and my Bushmaster yet the AWB would allow the hunting rifle and ban mine. This is where gun folks go WTF? are these people stupid or have a different agenda? The general agreement is that they have a larger ban in mind and that by starting with something that LOOKS like what the army has they can gain a toe hold with a gullible public. There is no logic to this, and that is why 'we' often called the AWB the 'Ugly' Rifle ban and our toys as "Evil Black Rifles" since Black seems to be the real problem. I know.. how about a pink AR-15? <http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/HelloKittyParts.jpg > Here it is in use, lest you think this is a good photoshop job.. <http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/ShootingKitty1.jpg > This rifle is 100% legal EVEN in California because it is based on an "off-list" lower receiver made by Stag Arms and has no evil features at all, instead featuring a fixed stock instead of the evil collapsible stock, a muzzle brake in place of the vile flash-hider, and a MonsterMan Grip instead of the heinous and malicious plastic pistol grip. The C Products magazine looks like a 30 round magazine body but is permanently modified to only allow 10 rounds. And that is just how stupid these kinds of laws are. "Ugly" does not make something more dangerous unless we are talking about ex- girlfriends. > > I wonder as well whether those who are against the assault rifle ban > are against any limit on what weapons law-abiding citizens should be > able to have, or simply want the bar set higher? i.e., how about > tanks? howitzers? machine guns mounted on the back of pickup trucks? > grenade / rocket launchers? And I am seriously asking, because by > strictly extrapolating the principle that the population must have > the right to have the means to defend itself against a corrupt > government, at least I arrive at the conclusion that the only > restrictions on private ownership of weapons should be the ones that > the government places on itself, i.e., things like arms treaties, > etc (so, no chemical or biological weapons, but helicopter gunships > or similar should in principle be OK). > > The founding fathers expected the citizen soldier to bring with him the implements of a common foot soldier. You could argue that that should allow full auto weapons these days, but you would have a harder time arguing for a rocket launcher or truck mounted machine gun. (I'd love a M2, but a single bullet sells for $5.00 and the cycle rate is 300 Rounds Per Minute...) Those soldiers were not expected to, nor could they usually afford to own something like a cannon. I'd accept something like that as a reasonable interpretation of what the founders meant in the 2nd amendment. Car ownership might not be a good analogy. Legally, A 5 year old can buy a lamborginue and drive it on his own property or any private property with permission, without ANY government say at all he just can't take it on the road. The government only controls and licenses drivers to drive on public lands and roads not private. =c= [1] the cost of ammunition is another thing. A quick check at ammoman.com 1000 9mm goes for $189. The UZI fires at 900 rounds per minute so for that $189 you have just a little bit more than 1 minute of fun.. _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
