digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Obama Calls for Permanent Assault Weapons Ban to Combat Inner-City Violence

tractioncontrol.well-regulated… — Bye, Obama. Today, there were 67 million guns in the U.S. that did not kill anyone. Target the criminals, not the guns. - Ed.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Xuvious, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9That's just what we need. Another anti-self defense Prez. Yet more proof Abama and the rest are out to lunch and hiding from reality. Dangerous to our liberties.

  • jron, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10"Guns branded as "assault weapons" have never been used in more than 1%-2% of violent crimes according to police reports and felon surveys, and in only 0.25% of violent crimes reported in crime victim surveys. Congress` study found that the guns "were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders." Knives, clubs and bare hands are used in more than 20 times more murders." -NRAILA Fact Sheet

    CFR candidates are all the same.
  • opiniastrous, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Can I ask this? What is the point of allowing the average American citizen to own an assault rifle? Certainly, you can use them recreationally, but they're not necessary - rifles and pistols are just as good, if not better (if you've got some sort of purpose to it anyway, like hunting or shooting on the range). You can also use them for protection, but again, you don't actually need anything that powerful unless you're John McCLane. Furthermore, if assault weapons were taken off the streets, then there would be even less need to pack that much firepower.

    Assault weapons are called 'assault weapons' because that's what they were designed for during WWII - assaulting on the battlefield. I just can't comprehend why the average American citizen would think they need them, or deserve to have them (regardless of what the US constitution says).

    Seriously, I'm not an American, and I don't have an agenda. I just don't really understand why people would react so strongly against a suggestion like this. Can someone give me a reasonable answer as to why you would?
    • mkrfctr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Simple, it's assumed you're a law abiding responsible citizen until you are not. You have no more right to tell me what type of firearm I may have or use for whatever purposes I see fit than I have to tell you what type of automobile and in what fashion you will use it. In fact, I have more right to do that, since firearms are very specifically mentioned in the friggen constitution of the whole United States, and there is nary a mention of automobiles.

      So to answer your question, why? Because I can.

      All the rest is hyperbole, deciding what someone needs or doesn't need, that there are raging gun battles in the streets involving "assault weapons", that people don't "deserve" to have them. Here let me copy paste in something else and show you just how silly you are:

      "Can I ask this? What is the point of allowing the average American citizen to own washing machine? Certainly, you can use them recreationally, but they're not necessary - a washboard and tub is just as good, if not better (if you've got some sort of purpose to it anyway, like washing dainty things). You can also use them for soiled jeans, but again, you don't actually need anything that powerful unless you're a professional laundromat. Furthermore, if washing machines were taken off the streets, then there would be even less need to have spotless clothes.

      Washing machines are called 'washing machines' because that's what they were designed for during WWII - washing G.I. uniforms. I just can't comprehend why the average American citizen would think they need them, or deserve to have them (regardless of what the US constitution says).

      Seriously, I'm not an American, and I don't have an agenda. I just don't really understand why people would react so strongly against a suggestion like this. Can someone give me a reasonable answer as to why you would?"
      • opiniastrous, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Oh, very clever, but I'm about to tear you apart...

        You see, as I said, I was asking a question. I was trying to understand your position because I like to learn. After all, as John Stuart Mill said "He who knows only his own argument knows little of that." However, you thought to attack me, call me names and distort my words, all without providing an answer to my question, or indeed, an answer at all. So, if you will call me "silly", I will show you just how flawed your argument was, and from that, people can infer just how learned you really are.

        Let's see. I'll start at the top. You say, "Simple, it's assumed you're a law abiding responsible citizen until you are not." That, I would say, is the start of a pretty good argument. In a liberal democracy, certain assumptions are made and rights enshrined to protect peoples' civil liberties (Most famously, "Innocent until proven guilty"). However, that does not mean people do not have the right to tell you what to do (I ignore the fact that you tried to make it about me when you said "You have no right..."). I assume you support democracy; you're not an anarchist or a communist are you? If you do, you are willing part of a political system. Politics is the process by which people make decisions in societies. So, when you say people have no right to tell you what to do, that is not quite right. Just as the elected government has the moral and legal authority (its right, if you will) to prevent me from killing you, it has the right to tell you what to do. Why? Because it has a mandate from the people. Now, we often impose limitations on that power through laws because there are some things that are considered morally correct, and therefore irreproachable. However, laws are not necessarily morally correct. What if the current government imposed a law that said the local governor has the right to sleep with any woman on the day of her marriage? Some governments have done it before... This is why I earlier wrote "regardless of what the US constitution says", because I was trying to ensure our discussion was based on the reasons behind, and moral correctness of each side of the argument, rather than interpretations of an external source (i.e. the second amendment). Now that we're there, let's talk about the issue at that moral level. Is it sensible to assume that everyone is law-abiding until they are not? Perhaps the benefits of allowing people to own assault rifles is outweighed by the harm that the law-breaking minority causes with them. After all, they are assault rifles - they were developed in Stalingrad for warfighting, not hunting, clay-pigeon shooting or self-defence (If you want to argue with me on that, consider why combat medics, who are only allowed defensive weaponry under the Law of Armed Conflict, are not allowed assault rifles. Even the world's militaries agree that assault weapons are not defensive!). I would say that the benefits do not outweigh the problems caused, because as I explained, you have no need for them. They provide you no real benefit other than the fact you like having and firing them.

        So, to rebut your 'answer', you are not guaranteed the right to hold that weapon, because you might not have a good reason for it.

        Now, let me explain how silly you are by explaining the logical make-up of your argument, and why it is invalid. For a start, you used the 'Straw Man' fallacy and a 'False analogy'. Here's a link to the Wiki section on logical fallacies if you want to learn a little about logic:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

        Essentially, you oversimplified my argument, turned it into an analogy that isn't a proper comparison (did you notice that 'assault rifles' and 'GIs' don't share any properties other than the fact they're both in the Army?), and awkwardly jammed it back into my words so that it appeared as if I said something like that. In essence, you misrepresented my position in order to make me look "silly." I'm sorry that I stopped you from doing that though, because otherwise you might have gone on confident in the strength of your own intellect, and your chances of winning an argument. Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_Syndrome
      • opiniastrous, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3(Because I hate how Safari deletes my paragraphs)
        Oh, very clever, but I'm about to tear you apart...

        You see, as I said, I was asking a question. I was trying to understand your position because I like to learn. After all, as John Stuart Mill said "He who knows only his own argument knows little of that." However, you thought to attack me, call me names and distort my words, all without providing an answer to my question, or indeed, an answer at all. So, if you will call me "silly", I will show you just how flawed your argument was, and from that, people can infer just how learned you really are. Let's see. I'll start at the top.

        You say, "Simple, it's assumed you're a law abiding responsible citizen until you are not." That, I would say, is the start of a pretty good argument. In a liberal democracy, certain assumptions are made and rights enshrined to protect peoples' civil liberties (Most famously, "Innocent until proven guilty"). However, that does not mean people do not have the right to tell you what to do (I ignore the fact that you tried to make it about me when you said "You have no right..."). I assume you support democracy; you're not an anarchist or a communist are you? If you do, you are willing part of a political system. Politics is the process by which people make decisions in societies. So, when you say people have no right to tell you what to do, that is not quite right. Just as the elected government has the moral and legal authority (its right, if you will) to prevent me from killing you, it has the right to tell you what to do. Why? Because it has a mandate from the people. Now, we often impose limitations on that power through laws because there are some things that are considered morally correct, and therefore irreproachable. However, laws are not necessarily morally correct. What if the current government imposed a law that said the local governor has the right to sleep with any woman on the day of her marriage? Some governments have done it before... This is why I earlier wrote "regardless of what the US constitution says", because I was trying to ensure our discussion was based on the reasons behind, and moral correctness of each side of the argument, rather than interpretations of an external source (i.e. the second amendment). Now that we're there, let's talk about the issue at that moral level. Is it sensible to assume that everyone is law-abiding until they are not? Perhaps the benefits of allowing people to own assault rifles is outweighed by the harm that the law-breaking minority causes with them. After all, they are assault rifles - they were developed in Stalingrad for warfighting, not hunting, clay-pigeon shooting or self-defence (If you want to argue with me on that, consider why combat medics, who are only allowed defensive weaponry under the Law of Armed Conflict, are not allowed assault rifles. Even the world's militaries agree that assault weapons are not defensive!). I would say that the benefits do not outweigh the problems caused, because as I explained, you have no need for them. They provide you no real benefit other than the fact you like having and firing them.

        So, to rebut your 'answer', you are not guaranteed the right to hold that weapon, because you might not have a good reason for it.

        Now, let me explain how silly you are by explaining the logical make-up of your argument, and why it is invalid. For a start, you used the 'Straw Man' fallacy and a 'False analogy'. Here's a link to the Wiki section on logical fallacies if you want to learn a little about logic:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

        Essentially, you oversimplified my argument, turned it into an analogy that isn't a proper comparison (did you notice that 'assault rifles' and 'GIs' don't share any properties other than the fact they're both in the Army?), and awkwardly jammed it back into my words so that it appeared as if I said something like that. In essence, you misrepresented my position in order to make me look "silly." I'm sorry that I stopped you from doing that though, because otherwise you might have gone on confident in the strength of your own intellect, and your chances of winning an argument. Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_Syndrome
        • mkrfctr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You asked someone to answer your question of why someone would support allowing people to own "assault weapons"
          My answer was:
          1. Guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (some people actually respect and honor "just a piece of paper")
          2. Individual liberty which means I am allowed to do as I please until it harms someone else
          3. The fallacy of allowing another to define the "needs" of others (this is what my "silly" was about, that the same could be said of many things, and who is "the decider" on what constitutes "need")

          So to reply to this last post:
          1. Yes I support democracy and its correct attachments (protection of minority from majority, free and open process, etc etc)
          2. No I am not a communist, socialist, or an anarchist. I am a constitutionalist, a libertarian in most regards, and strongly for freedom and individual liberty.
          3. Yes I am bound by the laws created by democracy and society. However you asked why people could support such a thing, and my response was that it is legal to do so, and by the highest law of the land no less. Thus such a "gun-control" act is IMO unconstitutional without a Constitutional amendment.
          4. By the morals of the issue rather than the law (which as you stated, law /= morality, and morality /= law) I fall back to individual liberty and freedom to do as one chooses until one harms another. (As well as a few of the following)
          5. The "well this action will prevent more harm from occurring than the harm the act itself will cause" I find to be an often fallacious notion. It involves an attempt to predict the future and the actions of many individuals as a collective. If such was easy marketing would be 100% and manipulation in politics, corporate life, etc etc would be easily accomplished. It also picks and chooses whom to harm, which I find to naturally curry favor and corruption in politics.
          6. I find the "well it is designed only for killing" argument to be quaint. All firearms were designed (way back in the 1400s or w/e it was) and are still designed to kill. Just as a hammer is designed to pound nails, that is its function. As much as people would like to deny it, killing is an essential function. It is essential to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Real life is not a utopia, and removal of a device designed solely to kill does not remove killing. It simply switches to another tool that has a non-killing primary usage.
          7. If once again going by what the law is and why it is the moral and just stance; The "but we only need guns in a militia such as the army or the national guard" is a misinterpretation of the Constitution. It was well understood that a "militia" consisted of normal citizens who possessed their own "arms" which meant personal weapons. Things such as cannon were considered artillery and thus defeat the "what about owning a nuke?" straw-man.
          8. I disagree with the terminology and the definition of what a constitutes an "assault weapon" compared to a rifle or sub-machine gun. It certainly isn't what was specified in the Brady bill of 1994. This again goes to who is "the decider" and what constitutes what someone "needs".
          9. I disagree with notions that a ban is necessary on grounds of protection of others considering the tiny percentage that are ever used in actually offenses against other people. The vast majority used in such crimes against other people is simple, inexpensive fire arms.
          10. I disagree with the notion of banning simple inexpensive firearms on the grounds that it is discrimination against the poors' right to defend themselves.
          11. I feel that the attacks against "assault weapons" are not based in logic and quest for the greater good, but are instead an emotional based power-grab by politicians.
          12. I view an armed populace as a populace safe from tyranny. If not safe from tyranny, at least free to mount a resistance and attempt a revolution such that it dissuades attempts to create one.
          13. I view an armed populace as safer from external attack. An attacking country has a difficult time against an armed populace and it greatly discourages invasions. We resorted to nuclear weapons against Japan because we knew they were armed, and would fight tooth and nail to the death over every inch of their country. It is a great deterrent.
          14. I disagree with arguments that too many lives are lost to accidents. We put up with some 40,000 U.S. deaths due to automobiles, yet we view them as sufficiently necessary to still permit such end results. By comparison accidental deaths are minimal, and as stated above I feel possession of weapons by individuals is certainly valuable enough to justify such end results.
          15. Umm I'm just going to stop now, I'm sure I could come up with more if need be, but that's all of the top of my head at the moment.

          You can certainly feel free to disagree with those view points based upon differing beliefs, philosophy, etc, but you cannot say that there are not valid arguments for personal gun possession, even of so called "assault weapons".

          Good day.
      • kinneas666, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@Opiniastrous
        This guy never insulted you. Also, because you can spout that foul wordy rhetoric doesn't make you any more correct than the next jerk. His argument against you was sound, he didnt have to go into the whole washing machine metaphor, i will agree that he just made things more confusing there. So if you want to get "huffy" for someone calling you names, now you can, douche.
        Why do you need to be able to buy extra strength tylenol @ 500mg when you can just take 2 regular strength @250 mg?
        Thats exactly why. Your more than welcome to run your state as socially as you please but the USA (as i prefer you refer to it as, and not simply "America") things aren't that bad yet, and we would clearly prefer them not to be. After reading this article the only valid question you should be asking is why are United States Presidential Candidates are pandering to the wants of small special interest groups, because its clear with the facts cited that assault weapons aren't the root cause of the problems Obama is speaking about.

        And as for your rude and QUITE ignorant comments regarding the constitution. The moral compass of the United State IS the constitution. You sound like a jackass because you begin to talk about understanding your opponents argument but then you go on to assume that YOUR morals are the only CORRECT ones. Morals are a subjective idea you pushy pseudo-intellectual *****. The philosophy behind the constituion is one of ONLY civil liberties, and thats what the right to bear arms is.

        However fogiving all that "I'm about to tear you apart... " on your argument of "why would anyone ever actually need that?". I mean its kind of astounding that I even have to counter a point like that and i think thats also how mkrfctr felt. I mean really?! You want to use "why would you even need that?" as an excuse to ammend the most official, sacred, and somehow still uncorrupted document of a world superpower??? Well why didnt we think of that before?!

    • RuffRidr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9I'll tell you why. The term "assault weapon" has been used by former presidents and the press as a way to get rid of a large subset of firearms, not because of function, but because of how they look. The assault weapons ban of 1994 banned such things as pistol grips and bayonet lugs. Yet they made a big deal on how they were ridding the world of 'evil black rifles'. I'm sure glad they got rid of all of those drive-by bayonetings that were going on.
      • opiniastrous, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Well, OK, but that's another argument isn't it? If by attempting to ban 'assault rifles/weapons' they were attempting to ban more than actual assault rifles, then you might have a case, particularly (I won't repeat the majority of my reply to mkrfctr) if the benefits outweigh the negative consequences.
        • Dimensio, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The "assault weapons ban" did not ban any assault rifles. Assault rifles are a completely different class of firearm. However, the confusion that you have demonstrated is exactly what anti-gunners desire; they wish to conflate "assault weapon" with "assault rifle" as a means of convincing the public that they are seeking a ban on fully automatic firearms.

          It should be noted that neither assault rifles nor "assault weapons" are a significant problem when examining gun crime in the United States. There is no logical reason to ban "assault weapons".
    • Dimensio, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9You are confusing "assault rifle" with "assault weapon". An "assault rifle" is a specifically defined term, referring to rifles that are capable of either fully automatic or burst fire modes of operation. Assault rifles are already tightly restricted in the United States.

      "Assault weapons" are a poorly-defined class of typically semi-automatic firearms. The definition changes depending upon what a gun grabbers wants to ban at the time; "assault weapons" that were banned in 1994 are not the same as the "assault weapons" that Carolyn McCarthy wants to ban now in 2007. Note that so-called "assault weapons" have never been a significant factor in firearms crimes and homicides. In fact, of all firearms homicides, only 4% were committed with all types of rifles combined, which includes homicides committed with rifles that do not qaulify as "assault weapons". In Illinois last year, "assault weapons" were involved in exactly one homicide.

      "Assault weapons bans" are nothing more than an infringement upon civil liberties as a means to obtain votes from hoplophobes who know nothing of firearms. They do not cut down on crime, as they have never been a significant part of crime in the first place. The Democrats lost control of Congress in 1996 because of that kind of idiocy, and Obama has probably made himself unelectable with his support of this nonsense.
      • RuffRidr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Very well stated Dimensio.
      • mkrfctr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1See my comments below in regards to those terms.
      • opiniastrous, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I know what an assault rifle is, I just thought that the term 'assault weapon' might be used synonymously over there in the US, or at least in the context of this discussion. However, you saying that they only make up 4% of firearms homicides in the US each year is not necessarily anything to brag about. For a start, 4% of firearms homicides in the US is quite a lot of murders - the USA has the highest rate of murders per capita in the developed world. Furthermore, just because the number seems small, that's because you use a percentage. Just because 96% of firearms murders occur with other weapons means nothing. If it did, then that would be an argument for taking away all those other weapons right? Finally, saying that only one murder in Illinois occurred with an 'assault weapon' means nothing. One sparrow doesn't make a summer... What you really need to show to start proving something is nation-wide statistics over a period of time. Basically, you've got some very flawed data there. You might be right when you say it would be ineffective to ban assault weapons, but rather than trying to use the data to fit your predetermined conclusion, you should research the data, and then make a conclusion.
        • Dimensio, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"However, you saying that they only make up 4% of firearms homicides in the US each year is not necessarily anything to brag about."

          No, all *rifles* combined account for 4% of all homicides (actually, it might be all firearms homicides, I'm not certain). "Assault weapons" are a *subset* of rifles, meaning that "assault weapons" account for even *fewer* homicides.

          More people are killed with fists and feet per year than they are with "assault weapons". Shall we start cutting off limbs?


          " For a start, 4% of firearms homicides in the US is quite a lot of murders - the USA has the highest rate of murders per capita in the developed world."

          That's a cultural problem, not a problem of "assault weapons". There are millions of "assault weapons" in the country. In any given year, less than one percent are used in a homicide. The rest are used in a lawful fashion. Why do you think it rational to ban millions of firearms because less than one percent of them were used illegally?


          "Just because 96% of firearms murders occur with other weapons means nothing. If it did, then that would be an argument for taking away all those other weapons right?"

          No. That a subset of items are used illegally is not justification for banning all of that item.

          Some people use their cars illegally. It does not logically follow that all cars should be banned.


          " Finally, saying that only one murder in Illinois occurred with an 'assault weapon' means nothing. One sparrow doesn't make a summer... "

          Look, if you don't have a rational response, just say so. Your above statement is completely meaningless.


          "What you really need to show to start proving something is nation-wide statistics over a period of time. "

          I just told you that in ANY given year, ALL rifles account for 4% of homicides. "Assault weapons", being a subset, account for LESS than that. These are based on the last five years of FBI crime stats. What more data do you want? So-called "assault weapons" are not a significant factor in the homicide rate. Banning "assault weapons" is not going to change the murder rate.

          It is the advocates of a ban who need to provide justification for banning something. In non-fascist countries, the burden of evidence is NOT put upon those opposing a ban.


          "You might be right when you say it would be ineffective to ban assault weapons, but rather than trying to use the data to fit your predetermined conclusion, you should research the data, and then make a conclusion."

          I'm not the one advocating the position with the burden of proof. Assault weapons ban advocates have, thus far, failed to provide any evidence to show that banning so-called "assault weapons" will benefit society. Instead, they handwave away statistics showing that these firearms are not a problem in the country (as you have done) and they dishonestly shift the burden of proof onto those opposing unnecessary restrictions upon civil liberties (as you have done).
  • mkrfctr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5OMG, it has like a pistol grip, and a flash hider, and it's black, and um I'm SCARED!!! Wait, what do you mean I'm more likely to get shot by a $100 .38 revolver that was stolen out of some dudes house, and not by a $1,000 "assult rifle" - well that's bogus, I'm motivated by emotion not logic, so think of the children, ban the evil mechanical devices BAAAANNN!!!!
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I thought it was already illegal to own assault rifles??
    • mkoby, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's illegal to own an automatic assault rifle. That is to mean it is illegal to own a gun that fires more than a single round while you have the trigger pressed. It is also legal to convert a rifle to an automatic from semi-automatic.

      It is perfectly legal to own most non-automatic assault rifles (with some exceptions).
    • mkrfctr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Umm it was illegal in the U.S. to purchase new "assault rifles" as defined by the Brady bill of 1994. It was also illegal to modify a weapon into an "assault rifle" under the Brady bill of 1994. Also made illegal to sell were magazines that held more than 10 rounds that were manufactured after the Brady bill of 1994. All existing "assault rifles" and 10+ cap. magazines were grandfathered in.

      IIRC the Brady bill of 1994 had a 10yr(?) sunset clause, and it was not renewed, thus it is no longer valid.

      I won't get into the flash hiders, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, etc that were supposed to constitute an "assault rifle" but the bill was largely ineffective. Other than raising prices on grandfathered magazines and rifles, and requiring the "assault weapons" to come with full rifle stocks and lacking in said accessories, it had little effect. Not that it would have done much of anything anyway considering it was going after a non-issue considering the actual factual statistics on the use of such "assault weapons".
    • Dimensio, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Assault rifles are tightly restricted by federal law, but it is not illegal to own them, except in certain states.

      However, Obama was speaking of "assault weapons" which is another class of rifles. Gun grabbers deliberately conflate the two, because their actual goal is a total ban on all civillian firearms ownership.
      • mkrfctr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I'm not sure I agree with your comments on "assault rifles" being a specifically defined term that is not under the umbrella of an assault weapon. As by English convention, a rifle is a weapon and thus "assault weapons" would include "assault rifles". I'm also not sure that "assault rifle" is a defining term for a weapon that is capable of fully automatic or burst fire. Many sub machine guns, and even pistols are capable of being full auto, and they certainly would not be classed as an "assault rifle". I believe the correct term is to state based upon the law which IIRC defines them as a Class III weapon.

        And it is certainly legal to own them. However you need to purchase a "tax stamp" which is expensive to procure and IIRC there is also a no new weapons can be manufactured or imported past what is it 1976 or 1984 or something ... making the actual weapons EXTREMELY expensive in the U.S. Also some states do have complete bans on them as well.
        • Dimensio, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"I'm not sure I agree with your comments on "assault rifles" being a specifically defined term that is not under the umbrella of an assault weapon."

          Then you're ignoring established definitions. By definition, an "assault rifle" is a rifle that must have a select-fire switch allowing for either a fully automatic or a burst fire mode. You are correct that there are non-rifle firearms that can be fired in a fully automatic or burst fire configuration; these are not "assault rifles" and thus not the subject of discussion. "Assault weapons", as defined in laws that ban or restrict them, always specifically refer to semi-automatic firearms. "Assault weapon" is a changing definition, that typically refers to a class of firearms that anti-gun radicals are seeking to ban at any given time.
          • mkrfctr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Oh yeah forgot to add in my comment below: It also clearly lists fully automatic weapons under "assault weapons", not solely semi-auto only firearms as you suggest. So not to be snarky, but that's 3 for me, 0 for you. *razz*
        • mkrfctr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Sorry, but I think dictionary.com backs me up on this one...
          Notice the second listing for "assault weapon" (clearly lists assault rifle under it), and #2 of the first listing and also both the 2nd and 3rd results under "assault rifle" (all of those entries list semiautomatic as an option for "assault rifle"; so clearly not limited to describing only full auto or select fire rifles as you suggest).

          3 results for: assault rifle
          assault rifle
          1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
          2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
          assault rifle
          n. Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.
          assault rifle
          any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use

          2 results for: assault weapon
          assault weapon
          any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use.
          assault weapon
          n. An infantry weapon, such as an assault rifle, designed for individual use.
  • mkoby, on 10/11/2007, -0/+71) The percentage of gun related violence in which assault rifles are used is minuscule at best.
    2) Outlawing weapons only ensures the criminals will have them as laws only affect law abiding citizens

    When are politicians going to truly understand point 2? By outlawing something, you are only ensuring that outlaws have them. Criminals are NOT buying their guns in gun shops. Obama just proved to me that he's truly an idiot.
    • mkrfctr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Yep, in the event of something like Obama vs Guiliani or something I'd have sided Obama, but the socialized health care (oooh boondoggle 3mi ahead) and now this speaks volumes about the priorities and ignorance and fear mongering and playing to the base of the Democratic party (not that the Republicans don't do the same thing). But if it came down to evil or lesser evil, I'd probably still have to side with Obama over Clinton or Giuliani (OMG TYRANT WHO WILL NUKE THE MIDDLE EAST AND POLICE STATE UP THE U.S.). *small text* Ron Paul
  • dbass777, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1The right to bear arms in the constitution is not to ensure we can kill dinner. It is in place so when the time comes we will have the "evil mechanical devices" to (hopefully) match the "evil mechanical devices" used by corrupt governments to suppress the population. I don't know about you but I certainly don't want to be the guy showing up to a gun fight with a knife, or throwing rocks at tanks. The right is there so that the masses can protect themselves from corrupt rulers, not for hunting dinner. But hey, what do the U.S. founding fathers know? They were only able to create a country...what a bunch of rubes they were. While we're at it, maybe we should get rid of free speech as well...regardless of what the constitution says. Hope my sarcasm is oozing through.
  • inurb, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2That's why I wont be voting for him. Assault weapons ban is dumb move. Respect the 2nd amendment.

    "Today, there were 67 million guns in the U.S. that did not kill anyone. Target the criminals, not the guns."
  • mikesspot, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1It is a cliche statement, but Gun control is very often not about guns, and more about control.

    Assault weapon is a generic term. In WWII, as previously stated, there was a large percentage of bolt action, low capacity rifles used that today can be outperformed by many legitimate hunting rifles in every way.

    If we allow things to be generically classified, it is just another step towards a total ban. The worst atrocities of the 20th century were committed in countries were citizens were denied the right to self defense.

    Make no mistake, the first line of defense against any intruder, be it a murderer, rapist, foreign or domestic threat, is always THE CITIZEN. The calvary cannot be everywhere all the time.

    In order for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to occur, we have to be able to feel secure in our surroundings. One cannot realistically place that entire burden on the shoulders of another person and expect the results that people demand.
  • Benjamin9, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0opiniastrous -

    Its the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
  • Seaniccus, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0What standard is he using to call something an "assault" weapon? If I remember correctly part of the previous banned was based on cosmetics rather than functionality.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.