"Thanks Patriot for the well researched response . Although I am not a gun rights advocate , I am also not anti-gun and in the spirit of trying to get the two sides of this issue to reach some sort of understanding , here is what I believe to be the major points of those who support a ban on assult weapons . First of all , I do agree that the definition of assult weapons is a little strange , and it essentially boils down to the guns that look scary . However , the spirit of the law was to try to ban weapons whose main purpose was militaristic in nature . That is , guns that are able to be fired rapidly , have a large magazine , and reasonable stopping power . Thus , although the ban would not eliminate all of the `` dangerous `` weapons ( I assume that an M1 , the rifle that beat the Nazis , would be legal ) it does cover a lot of them . Of course , most 2nd amendment rights supporters would say that all this does n't matter , it does n't matter what purpose the gun serves , it is unconstitutional to infringe upon the rights of Americans to own any gun they want , no matter the purpose . What gun control advocates would say , however , is that the constitution says 'arms ' not guns , and it becomes the job of the goverment to determine what was meant my this . I think that most gun control advocates would agree that the second amendment probably did not intend for people to be able to buy chemical or biological weapons , for example . And , I for one , hope that is not what they meant , particularly in light of the recent war on terrorism . A common remark is `` why would it matter if I had a nuclear weapon if I am a law abiding citizen and would never use it against my neighbor ? `` The problem is that we do n't know what the intention of everyone is , and there are certainly terrorists in this country now who are American citizens and would use such powerful weapons against usif they were able to acquire them . Of course a semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle is not the same as a chemical weapon , but the point is that ( I think ) most people do n't think that you should be able to own absolutely any weapon that you want , so one must attempt to define what is too dangerous for ordinary citizens to own . I do n't think that I covered all of your points , Patriot , but this is getting long , so I will cut this off here , and I hope to get a response from you . I will be interested in your thoughts . -Dan"
"The ban on assault weapons stands on such poltically weak and Constitutionally weak ground that Congress only had the guts and the will to try it for 10 years . It expires this year . The right to own arms is expressly clear . It shall not be infringed by Congress . The federal government is fully empowed to keep arms away from convicted fellons , it does not have the power to limit them from citizens . Those people who `` you do n't know ( what they may do ) `` ? When the government is effective enough to prevent crime or has the power to do so , then we no longer live in a free society . Keep in mind that free choice also allows a person to decide to break the law . It cuts both ways , you can not take away the choice to break laws and allow good citizens truely be free . The only governments through history that have been effective in crime prevention has been tyranically communist countries with extensive secret police . The present people in former communist block countries today are sad to see thier streets full of crime , they recall `` back in the day `` how safe it way to walk down dark streets in saftey . Yes they were safe from criminals , they were not safe from the secret police . The moment the secret police eyed you for real or imagined statistical probability of breaking a crime or become a political enemy , you dissapeared and no one ever saw you alive again . The WMD analogy is poor . You will not find any vendors . Please find another one . There may be Constitutionally poor arguments in favor of banning WMDs for civilians , that argument is moot . You will not find any vendor . The Constitution protects my right to own arms . That does not mean arms vendors must be forced to sell thier product to me if I want one . That argument is moot . The Firearms Act decided that sawed off shot guns and the Thompson machine gun is to be banned from civilian ownership . Early Supreme court DECISIONS support this . Early judicial opinion of the the Firearms act was based on the fact that the Thompson and sawed off shot gun was not a military serviceable weapon and does not apply to the 2nd Amendment . The Thompson and sawed off shotgun were not used by the US Army . Guess what ? The Thompson was adpoted by the Army a few years later . So then , what does that mean ? Judicial opinion is of the direction that military serviceable weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment . What does that mean for the assault rifle ban ? It means it is on shakey Constitutional ground . Some points I have for you : 1 ) Flash supressor ? Argued by anti-gunners prevent shooters from hiding thier position . Completely false . Flash hiders can hide flash from the target . It 's main purpose is to hide flash from the SHOOTER ! The flash startles the shooter and makes bullets ballistically unstable : `` Excessive muzzle flash happens when unburned powder ignites at the muzzle , causing turbulence behind the bullet with a detrimental effect on accuracy. `` - http : //www.shootingsoftware.com/loadens.htm Flash has more to do with the ammo than the attachment on the end . The Flash hidder ban has lowered target shooting scores more than protecting lives . 2 ) Magazine limit ? Argued by anti-gunners to save lives . Argued to prevent rapid and large expendature of rounds down range upon victims . True , but how often do you hear that ? When it does happen it is national news . The real threat is from guns that contain more 2 less than 4 bullets : http : //ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/151 The anti-gunners know this and are comming after your 6 shot revolvers next . They just wanted people to started getting used it to idea of banning bullet capacity . So then . The ban on more than 10 bullets ? It really does not do anything than give a false sense of security . If public policy productive and actally do something , then the ban on 10 bullets is a farce . 3 ) Bayonet ? I can not even fathom a reason to ban them other than emotional reasons . Simly because they look dangerous I suppose is why they are banned . Will someone please let me know ? Public policy should not be based on emotional reasons to be truely good and effective policy . 4 ) Pistol grip ? They make controling an automatic weapon easier to sight on your target . Well then , if you rifle is semi-auto , then what reason is there to ban them ?"
"understanding ,"
"The ban on assault weapons to . It is , ? Constitution I judicial opinion that the 2nd Amendment a few . What does that for the you : should"