The gun-law sky is falling?

[Bowline]

Chicken Little arrives every four years in a feather-ruffled flurry squawking about some kind of impending doom. This year she is incited to a level of hen-ish hysteria by the encroaching expiration of the federal "assault weapons" ban.

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry is all for extending the ban on 19 military-style firearms, coos Chicken Little. He suspended his campaign back in March so he could go to Washington and cast one of the few Senate votes he found time to make in the past year. No one should read anything political into that.

But that bad ol' President Bush, clucks the harried hen, he said he'd sign an extension of the ban, but he isn't doing anything to force those nasty, gun-loving, NRA-co-opted Republicans to bring it to a vote.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists/jr_labbe/9344221.htm

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Interesting rhetoric.

No real substance though. Kinda what I've come to expect from both sides f the arguments. Good to see I'm not being disappointed.

[Bowline]

2. Did you read the entire article?

It was actually a well written, researched piece. Just my opinion of course.

[Vladimir]

3. It never ceases to amaze me

how much crap can be talked about the AWB. As I see it, the AWB has nothing to do with the particluar guns banned under it, and neither its opponents nor proponents care one goddamn jot about bayonets of flash surpressors (at least i hope so...). What it does have to do with is seeing how far one can push ahead with federal gun control - the ultimate aim presumably being a more-or-less total gun ban. Repealing it would be a massive psychological win for the gun lobby, keeping it onboard the opposite. I mean, yeah, its a silly law - its silly because it does not go far enough. Repealing the AWB is not the answer, the answer is passing a new and more far-reaching piece of gun-control which renders the AWB obsolete.

[Bowline]

4. Gun control isn't about guns at all...it's about control.

And all too many people are willing to surrender to a government run by Ashcroft & Co.

[Vladimir]

5. Oh gimme a break

if the government really wanted you dead, you would be dead guns or no guns. Your best defence agains a government crackdown or in the event of a citizens revolt is probably hoping that the troops will refuse to fire on their own citizens - as shown, to give a recent example, by the Yugoslav coup of 2000.

[Bowline]

6. You can continue to trust in the government.

I, for one, don't.

[Vladimir]

7. Amusing then that you agree with them

when it comes to the AWB. Besides, who said I trust the government? I just recognise the futility of an AK against 1000 AKs.

[MrBenchley]

11. Welcome to the gungeon...

where according to the "pro gun democrats" the ONLY way to fight AshKKKroft and the Republicans is to bend over and spread 'em for whatever crack-brained idea they have...like putting assault weapons back on the market.

[Columbia]

13. Yeah, lets' just give up now. Turn 'em in boys and gals!

Tyranny is our friend.

[MrBenchley]

14. Tyranny's certainly the RKBAers' friend...

The only complaint we ever hear down here from our "pro gun democrats" about AshKKKroft and the GOP is that they're not gun crazy enough to suit...

[Vladimir]

16. Isn't it ironic

that the very government you claim the guns will protect you from is going to give them to you? Don't you think?

[MrBenchley]

18. I think the answer is....

No, our "pro gun democrats" don't think...they just clutch their popguns and wail in rage and fear.

[iverglas]

8. one poster's opinion, eh?

What it does have to do with is seeing how far one can push ahead with federal gun control - the ultimate aim presumably being a more-or-less total gun ban.

Too bad there isn't a fact in the world to base it on.

"Presumably". "As may reasonably be presumed", per my Oxford Concise.

I don't think so.

Repealing the AWB is not the answer, the answer is passing a new and more far-reaching piece of gun-control which renders the AWB obsolete.

Very true. From what I've seen, it's flawed legislation -- flawed by its underinclusiveness.

The solution is to amend it to correct its flaws -- not to allow it to self-repeal and then set about making a new one from scratch if and when one is in power, a contingency that cannot be controlled. No reasonably savvy would-be legislator would even consider such an unnecessarily risky, and complicated and time-consuming and expensive, course of action.

Imagine if a weak piece of environmental protection legislation were about to sunset -- would anyone be suggesting that it should be allowed to die, and polluters left to run amok for a few months or years before better legislation could be enacted? Well ... the polluters sure would be, I think.

That's not an unimaginable scenario. Sunset provisions are not that rare in case involving contentious legislation where there is widespread opinion that further examination of the situation and the legislation is needed. Opponents of legislative initiatives not uncommonly demand them in order not to hold up the legislation. The reason for them (except in the case of legislation enacted specifically to deal with what is believed to be a transient situation, which is simply not the case for the assault weapons ban), when they are demanded by honest and sincere opponents, is in fact to compel that further examination -- and a proper sunset provision will provide for a process for that examination.

Here's an example, from the Canadian Copyright Act:

92. (1) Within five years after the coming into force of this section, the Minister shall cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on the provisions and operation of this Act, including any recommendations for amendments to this Act.

Reference to parliamentary committee

(2) The report stands referred to the committee of the House of Commons, or of both Houses of Parliament, that is designated or established for that purpose, which shall

(a) as soon as possible thereafter, review the report and undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act; and

(b) report to the House of Commons, or to both Houses of Parliament, within one year after the laying of the report of the Minister or any further time that the House of Commons, or both Houses of Parliament, may authorize.

(That act doesn't actually sunset, but it's the same idea and just the first example that came to mind.)

If such a provision had been built into the legislation imposing the assault weapons ban in the US -- which I assume it wasn't -- a lot of the current discussion would obviously be moot.

The fact that something is "silly because it does not go far enough" really is not a good reason for getting rid of it. Babies and bathwater and all that.

[Vladimir]

9. Yes but you misunderstood me completely

I did not say it should be repealed, I said it should be maintained but work should start on passing a new law over the top of the AWB which would render it obsolete. Which seems to be what you are saying. So we seem in agreement.

PS I would have thought the 'As I see it' preceeding my rant would have made it clear that these were my opinions and not some facts I was presenting for the world to see.

[iverglas]

12. indeed

Yes, we do agree on the US assault weapons ban -- re-enact it, and amend it.

What I didn't understand was why you would say "the ultimate aim <of federal gun control in the US> presumably being a more-or-less total gun ban". I haven't had that impression at all.

It certainly isn't the ultimate aim of federal firearms control in Canada, or even in the good old UK (where circumstances are quite different from Canada or the US, with hunting, for instance, not being a way of life) or Australia.

[Vladimir]

15. Well the UK

where I live, has what I would call a more-or-less total gun ban, so I guess I was just being sloppy with language. As for whether UK style legislation is the ultimate aim or not, yeah, you are probably correct - to be more precise i would say that the main purpose of the AWB is to psychologically prepare for further, more restrictive legislation.

[iverglas]

17. okay

I apologize for not remembering that you were in the UK, muttering on the fringe with me.

UK-style firearms control has never seemed to me to be the ultimate aim of firearms control advocates in the US. It certainly is not in Canada. It may be a bit of a myth in Canada and the US now, in terms of how many people actually do it, but the hunting culture is still alive and well. And in Canada at least, there are local economies that depend on the employment and income provided by outfitters who cater to tourist hunters, for instance. There are also genuine pest/predator control needs, I'm willing to acknowledge, although some don't. And of course there are the First Nations and their right (constitutionalized, in Canada) to pursue their ancestral way of life.


to be more precise i would say that the main purpose of the AWB is to psychologically prepare for further, more restrictive legislation.

That may well be the aim of some supporters of the legislation. But I don't think it's accurate to say that it is the purpose of the legislation itself, or the reason why it was enacted.

The quite restrictive legislation in place in Canada -- very tight regulation of handgun possession, for instance, and bans on various other types of firearms -- doesn't seem to have any prospective purposes. There's no indication of any other weapons being likely to be banned, or any further restrictions being placed on firearms possession.

The US would indeed benefit from more of what we've got, and in particular a huge reduction in the number of handguns in circulation, and better regulation of possession of handguns. But there's no reason to think that any aspect of firearms control is -- or is meant to be -- a step along a slippery slope. Firearms control measures do stand alone perfectly well; inadequate, in some people's opinions, in terms of achieving the overall goal of reducing the harm caused with firearms, but still effective at what they specifically aim to do, e.g. remove some "assault weapons" from the market. (Yes, the US's AWB is a particularly ineffective piece of legislation when it comes to any broader goal.)

There is undoubtedly an element of "psychological preparation" in the minds of many supporters of the ban, but the job of going further isn't likely to be made much easier in this instance, and in fact doesn't seem to have been. It seems to me that the battle is really over this specific piece of legislation in this case, on their part. I'd see the psychological-preparation warfare being waged more by the opponents of the legislation, with all their disingenuous rhetoric of rights and freedoms, and attempts to identify banning assault weapons with all manner of social and political evils.

Kinda like the anti-choice brigade does when it portrays abortion as the slippery slope to child homicide, homicide of the disabled, and end-of-life homicide.

Those are the baskets where the real apples and oranges reside, at the bottom of the slippery slope that the disingenuous ones invoke.

[Vladimir]

19. Well if the battle is over the AWB

itself, then that isn't a battle I would take much joy in fighting - the only reason I would like the see it kept on is the psychological one. I have seen looser pieces of legislation, but mostly at student unions. :)

[Bowline]

20. Astute observation.

Both sides of the gun-control issue realize the 1994 AWB really didn't do much to deter gun crime but was mostly a feeler to see how limited gun control measures would be accepted by the American public. Looks like a fairly even split. Some bought the hype, others see it for what it is. More about control, less about the actual guns.

[iverglas]

21. if only

Both sides of the gun-control issue realize the 1994 AWB really didn't do much to deter gun crime ...

Your premise is that this legislation was enacted in order "to deter gun crime". That's YOUR premise, and it's as entirely unproved now as it is every time it is chanted in respect of British and Australian firearms laws, for example, by those pretending that this was the real premise behind their legislation.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the legislation was enacted in order to deter the use of assault weapons for any purpose for which they might be used.

There is no doubt that for the purpose of committing crimes (i.e. to facilitate the commission of the crime), there are many firearms available that can be substituted for assault weapons. And how many assault weapons were ever used to facilitate robberies, for instance, in the first place?

Plainly the reason for wanting to ban these firearms in particular is that they are more capable of causing particular kinds of serious harms that other firearm used in the same circumstances would be less capable of causing, and that they are the weapon of choice for many people who want to cause particular kinds of harm.

Your side's repetitive chanting of this patently false allegation of the premise behind the assault weapons ban is just boring.

I mean ... unless you can come up with some authoritative source for this assertion that the assault weapons ban was meant "to deter gun crime" and demonstrate that this characterization is not a grossly inaccurate oversimplification of the real purpose.

[MrBenchley]

22. Furthermore...

He is also distorting what we gun control advocates are saying....

"n 1994, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, a ban on the production of certain semiautomatic assault weapons as well as high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The law banned specific assault weapons by name and also classified as assault weapons semiautomatic firearms that could accept a detachable ammunition magazine and had two additional assault weapon design characteristics. The law is scheduled to end on September 13, 2004.

Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry moved quickly to make slight, cosmetic design changes in their "post-ban" guns to evade the law, a tactic the industry dubbed "sporterization." Of the nine assault weapon brand/types listed by manufacturer in the law, six of the brand/types have been re-marketed in new, "sporterized" configurations. In fact, gunmakers openly boast of their ability to circumvent the assault weapons ban. Their success is described in an August 2001 Gun World magazine article about the new Vepr II assault rifle, a "sporterized" version of the AK-47:

In spite of assault rifle bans, bans on high capacity magazines, the rantings of the anti-gun media and the rifle’s innate political incorrectness, the Kalashnikov , in various forms and guises, has flourished. Today there are probably more models, accessories and parts to choose from than ever before.


Equally blunt was an article in the May 2003 issue of Gun World reviewing the LE Tactical Carbine, a post-ban, "sporterized" AR-15 clone:

Strange as it seems, despite the hit U.S. citizens took with the passage of the onerous crime bill of 1994 , ARs are far from dead. Stunned momentarily, they sprang back with a vengeance and seem better than ever. Purveyors abound producing post-ban ARs for civilians and pre-ban models for government and law enforcement agencies, and new companies are joining the fray.


Just such a post-ban AR, the Bushmaster XM15 M4 A3 assault rifle, was used by the Washington, DC-area snipers to kill 10 and injure three in October 2002. The Bushmaster is the poster child for the industry’s success at evading the ban. The snipers’ Bushmaster is even marketed as a "Post-Ban Carbine.""

http://www.banassaultweapons.org/the_problems_and_the_players/

[Bowline]

23. I don't believe the law ever had anything to do with reducing crime.

I believe it had everything to do with getting Americans used to gun control and having more guns banned as a first step on the road to complete confiscation of all firearms from the American public. I further believe that this plan is NOT, repeat NOT a liberal issue nor a conservative issue but rather a government issue. I firmly believe there are darker forces at work here who are using the likes of Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer to do their dirty work.

[enfield collector]

24. correctamundo! its all about liberty versus authoritarionism.

and it's not a dem versus repug thing as you so astutely pointed out.

[iverglas]

25. and one for you

I'd have awarded you this one:



but somebody beat you to it by a hair.

[iverglas]

26. and the problem that both you fellas seem to have

... is that (if I may address the original and the echo both)

"it's not a dem versus repug thing"

it is.

and

"this plan is NOT, repeat NOT a liberal issue nor a conservative issue"

it is.

Facts is facts, unfortunately for your theory.

The fact that Democrats and liberals overwhelmingly don't share your funny ideas on a subject doesn't mean that there is no party-line or philosophical divide on that subject, you see.

The nature of the divide can be determined both by

(a) testing the idea against the fundamental elements of the party line or philosophy in question, and

(b) counting the numbers of undeniable adherents of the party line or philosophy in question lined up behind the idea.

In this case, both methods work very well, and demonstrate that your assertions are false.

[enfield collector]

27. don't have a problem at all, I see what's going on.

maybe you'd like disarmament of the people to be a liberal platform, but it looks like John Kerry doesn't.

[MrBenchley]

28. "disarmament of the people"

Koresh forbid that should ever happen....especially not the people with mental problems, or below average intelligence, or less than scrupulous morals....

[iverglas]

29. well

"maybe you'd like disarmament of the people to be a liberal platform, but it looks like John Kerry doesn't."

And maybe *you* would like the enslavement of people of colour to be a liberal platform, but it looks like John Kerry doesn't.

Hell, maybe *you* would like the burning of widows to be a liberal platform, but it looks like John Kerry doesn't.

Or maybe *you* would like infanticide to be a liberal platform, but it looks like John Kerry doesn't.


So ... should the reader conclude that both you and I are rotten to the core ... or should the reader imagine that none of the statements made by either of us, starting with the statement made by you, is anything but a foul bit of demagoguery and a vile attempt to portray another person as being something very bad that s/he is not?

You be the judge.

[enfield collector]

30. nice straw man you've got there.

[iverglas]

32. and you to thank for it and all

"maybe you'd like disarmament of the people to be a liberal platform"

That's our straw entity, and it was all yours, pal.

You're the one who pretended that someone had said something that no one ever said (and such a charmingly innuendish way).

Does your local community college maybe offer an evening course in logic for the reasoning-impaired? If not, there's always the internet, ready and willing to help those in need.

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4introfallacy.htm

Straw Person

Def.: Attempting to discredit a view by criticizing a weak version of it or the reason given in support of it.

The idea behind Straw Person is that if you can get people to think that a "straw" version (think of a scarecrow) of what a person is saying is the real version, then you can appear to be refuting what the person has said without actually addressing it at all. This sounds like it takes a lot of cunning and deceit, but the fact is that we all do it spontaneously. It takes a great deal of discipline and intellectual honesty to listen carefully to what someone is saying and represent it accurately before going on to criticize it. If you feel from the beginning that a person is wrong, you will naturally think that it isn't worth your time to listen very carefully to what they are saying.

The extreme version of the straw person argument, of course, is simply to disregard what the other person said entirely and invent something in its place. (And whether that is the product of "cunning and deceit" or a lack of "discipline and intellectual honesty" is always a question of fact, to be determined from the evidence.)

Now, who did that??

Oh yeah. You.

It's a little early, but here ya go:


http://www.winace.andkon.com/pics

(You might take a gander at both those links for some assistance with your problem, if it is of the under-wittedness variety.)

Of course, a failure of integrity is at least as common as the failure of intellect to which the award refers, in these situations.

[TX-RAT]

31. You know anybody who's been disarmed?

[goju]

33. Do you know anybody

who has been held in custody under the patriot act?

Nevertheless, I think we see a precedent in the patriot act that we all SHOULD be uncomfortable with.

[MrBenchley]

34. Gee, and who was it that GAVE us the Patriot Act?

Why, it was the most pro-gun idiot in the country....

[iverglas]

35. whoa, way to be disingenuous

Do you know anybody
who has been held in custody under the patriot act?

I'll bet that a lot of people don't -- but damn it all, I'll bet that a minimally informed person knows OF somebody who has been held in custody under the Patriot Act.

So try again: do you know OF anybody who has been disarmed?

[goju]

36. disingenuous indeed

Had any sane legislator known what asscroft would have done under the patriot act, would they have voted for it?

Do we need to wait for an abuse to take place before we form an opinion on insane legislation?

Considering the efficacy of the AWB and the "constitutional controllers" propaganda aimed at the uneducated, should gun owners NOT consider every attempt at restricting our rights a path down the slippery slope?

Just try to put yourself in our shoes.... but since you asked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=76340&mesg_id=76340

[MrBenchley]

37. Hahahahahaha.....

"Considering the efficacy of the AWB and the "constitutional controllers" propaganda aimed at the uneducated"
Gee, the only uneducated we've seen around here at any time have all been spouting the same RKBA rubbish that the NRA and GOA aim at dim right wing loonies...

And it's hilarious to hear you claim that citing actual court decisions is "propaganda."


"should gun owners NOT consider every attempt at restricting our rights a path down the slippery slope?"
Better hide under the bed...Dianne Feinstein's gonna getcha.....Soon you'll just have to muddle along with a drab ordinary gun or four.

[TX-RAT]

38. Maybe i wasn't typing loud enough.

Do you know of anybody who's been disarmed.
Yes to your question.

[iverglas]

40. eek

I hope you don't think I was talking to you!

You asked whether what's his name knew anybody who'd been disarmed, in response to his nasty insinuation statement: "maybe you'd like disarmament of the people to be a liberal platform".

What's his name responded by saying: "Do you know anybody who has been held in custody under the patriot act?"

I was just pointing out how he'd done nothing but evade the question by taking an extremely and unwarrantedly literal interpretation of it, i.e. "do you know anybody personally ...?" He implied that the fact that you (presumably) don't know anybody personally who's been held in custody under the Patriot Act would cancel out the fact that he (presumably) doesn't know anybody personally who's been disarmed.

Of course, personal acquaintance wasn't the point of the question. The actual question was whether the event had ever happened.

By pretending that the point was whether he knew of anybody the event had ever happened to, our friend simply engaged in the favourite pastime of the dim and/or disingenuous -- assailing straw persons and claiming victory, while the real adversary remains unscathed.

Anyhow, I'm sure you do have personal acquaintance with people who have been disarmed, and have in fact disarmed a number of people yourself. ;)

And that, too, would be irrelevant to what your question was really about, I'd say.

[iverglas]

39. whoa, way to flap your arms

Wouldn't it have been easier just to answer the question in the first place?

You're really not likely to become airborne, you know.

[MrBenchley]

10. Wow., an anti-Kerry editorial posted by a "pro gun democrat"

Who'd have guessed that would happen more than once a day or so? Try to contain your surprise...

[Wickerman]

41. locking

author unavailable for further comment