Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody, my name is T.J. and I am one of Juggs' young adult class members. I have to write a five page reasearch paper about anything I want for my college Comp II class and I chose gun controll, more specificly the Assault Weapons Ban. I don't know much about it and I thought the best place to learn more or get some information and help on it would be here. The paper has to explain what it is and then I have to give reasons of why it should be lifted. Any help you guys could spare would be greatly appreciated. Oh yeah, and don't be afriad to give me your REAL opinion, I'm in college, not high school and if this paper just happens to offend one of my DEMONcRAT classmates, well...that might just make my day a little bit better. :devil:

 

Everyone will be credited for their help in my References page (plagarism reasons) unless you request that I don't.

Links to sites are also helpfull, but Wikipedia is not allowed.

 

Thanks,

-T.J.

Edited by Saigateen
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Heller vs DC Supreme Court decision last year pointed out that a handgun ban was UnConstitutional. When a group goes to Washington, and tries to pay back it's supporters that helped get them to Washington by enacting legislation that was clearly defined as UnConstitutional the previous year then something is wrong.

 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a statement that is open to interpretation. It is straightforward and expresses the LAW of our land. Additionally it is not just the LAW but in the Preamble to the Constitution it is spelled out as a right that is inalienable. THis means that the right to self-defense, pursuit of happiness and such are inherent rights that are conveyed by our Creator and thus cannot be legislated by any government. I hope that gives you a start.

 

1911

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be classified as an "assault weapon" the firearm has to have at least a certain number of "evil features"...such as bayonet, folding stock, pistol grip, muzzle attachments, high capacity detachable mags (or the ability to accept them), barrel shroud (something that goes up...lol), etc... These features don't make a gun any more deadly or dangerous. It's absurd that these libtards think they do. It's even more absurd that they believe passing new laws banning these items, will have any effect what so ever on crime. Criminals don't obey laws! When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. They already have them and most are stolen, not bought legally anyway. If these idiots didn't have guns they would rob you with knives, explosives, hell a sharpened stick will do! Or even a club. Why don't we ban trees!

Something I think is even more absurd...after the last AWB sunsetted and was over, then it was still illegal to have some of these "evil features" BUT...you could replace these evil items with the exact same thing, as long as it said USA on it somewhere, and BAM! You're perfectly legal. How did the gun change? It's got parts on it that put money into US pockets, that's how....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick a number of arguments FOR the assault weapons ban and start debunking them one by one. Five pages isn't a lot of room for an exhaustive topic like the AWB so limiting the amount of subtopics will go a long way to writing a cohesive paper.

 

e.g this link debunks the argument that "assault weapons" endanger police officers:

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/opeds/are_assa...t_to_police.htm

 

this link cites a number of gun control issues and sources:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

 

They're a little dated because the articles were written during the time of the Clinton AWB.

 

This one is a little more recent and comments on the 2005 FBI Crime Statistics:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9140'

Link to post
Share on other sites
To be classified as an "assault weapon" the firearm has to have at least a certain number of "evil features"...such as bayonet, folding stock, pistol grip, muzzle attachments, high capacity detachable mags (or the ability to accept them), barrel shroud (something that goes up...lol), etc... These features don't make a gun any more deadly or dangerous.

 

I beg to differ, As these terms are bastardizations from a FEAR MONGERING bleeding heart liberal standpoint.

 

There is really only one TRUE definition of an ASSAULT WEAPON... And that is the ability to fire in a fully automatic mode.

 

Yes, the gun bans from the feds and states clearly point out "evil features" as characteristics of an "assault weapon" but they are no more true than calling drug dealers "unlicensed pharmacists"... Its just in the terms, and poor ones at that.

 

Make sure those points are WELL ADDRESSED that most military style weapons are in no way shape or form "assault weapons" but are IMPROPERLY classified as such to promote FEAR, MISUNDERSTANDING, and EMPATHY!

 

:smoke:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1994 gun ban is what they are talking about reinventing and passing again if what I have been told is true. When that gun ban was lifted CA rewrote it into state law. If you want to read CA laws in regards to what they are going to blanket the country with, check out CA PC 12276, 12276.1 and google "Kasler List." You will find what they define as an EBR or an Assault Weapon. You know what, now that I think of it, Wiki the true definition of Assault Weapon and you will find their definition is way off from the truth.

 

Hope this helps you out. If you have any questions that you think I might be able to answer, feel free to PM me.

Darin

Edited by hallboss
Link to post
Share on other sites

The intent of the second amendment was to ensure that the people are not oppressed through force by their own government. Therefore weapons of war (or assault weapons) are precisely the types of weapons that our forefathers sought to ensure we had a right to posess. Anti-gun nuts love to point out that assault weapons have no sporting purpose which, of course, is entirely beside the point. The second ammendment does not say we have a right to keep and bear arms "for sporting purposes". There was never an intent to limit the amount of firepower available to the average law abiding citizen to less than what is available to government agencies and criminals. This current and future limitation is entirely fabricated by, you guessed it, our government. So ironically it is their own attempts at chipping away at the second ammendment that is the impetus for us so-called "gun-nuts' to excercise our gun-owning rights beyond what we may have done if our rights were not continually under attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saigateen, you have come to the right place......all the points and info listed above are very good and these members really know their stuff.....and there is plenty to write on with just what has been going on the the last 15+ years.....

 

One aspect you can look at in part of your paper is how "Gun Bans" have affected other countries where their goverments have already tried and been suscessful at confiscating and outlawing weapons. i.e. Austrailia, Great Britian, Germany during Hitler's reign, etc.....there is plenty of information on how these "Gun Bans" have severly limited the rights of these citizens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Know your enemy:

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257:

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

 

Use Wiki for reference, just don't quote it:

 

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

 

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

 

If it were me, I would focus on the writings of the founding fathers and popular writings of the times and the reasoning behind the 2nd Ammendment - to give the people the means to oppose tyranny (especially in the form of its own government - a very real possibility in this country with the coming economic collapse due to the hyper-inflationary policies being implemented to counter the "economic crisis - think Weimer Germany). They were truly intelligent men and great writers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TJ, whatever you do, stay OUT of the "FIGHT CLUB."

 

Surly likes "young adult" boys.

 

Your signature about being "the sexiest" is not a particularly good idea around Surly.

 

Hint: wear a cyber-burka.

Edited by Bounce12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Luck. I think you already have enough information from the other threaders. One of my last classes before I graduated from Rock Valley College, which I earned a Associates of Science, was Speech. I chose to do a speech about why our state (Illinois) should allow the concealment of firearms by law-abiding citizens. I got interrupted several times even though it was suppose to be a speech and not dialogue. It was a very liberal college, as most are, and I got a terrible grade even though my delivery met and exceeded the grading rubric. Tell them that the law is against an existing law and is contradictory to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Your grade might depend though on whether or not your teacher is liberal or unbiased. If they are biased then your grade might suffer. Play the game.

Edited by Ijustlikeguns
Link to post
Share on other sites
Although it is true that your grade might suffer, I have to tell you that I was quite proud when my kids grades suffered for their defense of the truth. They both have Bachelor Degrees and didn't give in on anything. :) Do what you need to.

 

1911

 

I agree. I never sucked up to anyone, I never suger coated anything, and I spoke my mind. A trail of B minuses and C plusses later, and I had my bachelors. No, I'm not going to pretend that I like, Mr. Liberal Asshat Professor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

teen,

 

A related issue is the oft repeated phrase of "military" weapons as needing to be banned b/c those are allegedly not for the common citizen.

The 2nd was written when the everyday farmer citizen had the exact same weapons as the militia/ gov't entities. No differentiation was intended. None is needed now.

As many have stated "assault weapons" is a gimick phrase. What needs to be legislated is automatic weapons ... and they are - very stringently I might add.

 

 

IMO what we will see is the natural expansion of that philosophy with anything "NATO" becoming the identifier for what needs to be banned. The One World ideology has infected our trade, economic, financial, and banking infrastructure so it becomes much easier for them to utilize other countries wordly NATO view as what is "accepted" practice when it comes to weapons. They classify simple steel core ammo as "armor piercing" when we all know it is no such thing. Lawyers have already been permitted to reference other countries laws in arguing cases here in the USA - even to the Supremes, despite the fact that other countries laws are in large part why this country was settled and so many still seek to come here.

 

If time permits, I suggest you spend some time reading through literature/websites of those who support the opposing viewpoint. This will help you gain insight into their thinking as well as how better to formulate your arguments.

 

FWIW: Opinions are OK for creative writing but forget the anecdotal stuff if its an academic paper.

 

Good luck

HarvKY

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following are a couple of books to check out if you can find them:

 

The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms by Stephen P. Halbrook

 

That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy) by Stephen P. Halbrook

 

I would also check out the NRA website. They should have some good information, such as data showing that the Clinton AWB did not reduce violent crime and that violent crime has decreased since the ban expired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not going to post links but you can google

 

my thoughts and experience with the ban:

 

the assault weapons ban was in effect when bought my first shotgun. bought a new rem 870 home defense model. i could choose one "evil feature" to add to it. the most practical options were: extend the magazine, or get a buttstock with a pistol grip. couldn't have both, so i went with the a bigger magazine tube. only a few of the "evil features" actually make the gun more "potentially" deadly: detachable magazine and high cap magazine.

 

barrel shrouds, pistol grips, folding/telescoping stocks, bayonet lugs (when was the last time you heard of somebody being bayonetted? WWII, Korea?), flash suppressors (not sound suppressors) are just cosmetic features that have some ergonomic/functional value, but they don't make the gun any more deadly...even if everything is painted black. i love shooting clays with a barrel shroud on a pump or autoloader...never burn my hand when i roll it to the side to reload. i personally don't plan to ever need to reload in a home defense situation, but a barrel shroud obviously has a sporting purpose too.

 

the ban declared pistols with more than 10rds to be "assault weapons". standard issue service pistols were assault weapons.

 

whats more dangerous? a 9mm glock loaded with 17 or 18 rounds or a .30-06 rifle with a scope dialed in at 400+yrds? i think a scope adds alot more lethal capability and distance to escape. scopes were never on the list of "evil features".

 

one part of the ban text was for the DOJ to do a study to see how effective it was. it wasn't effective at all. most crimes were committed with the same types of guns that were used in crimes before the ban. pocket pistols. cheap .22 and .25 that weren't even effected by the ban because they weren't designed to hold more than 10 rounds.

 

if the fear mongers, lobbyists, and politicians took a look at the crimes numbers, they would've known that the AWB would have no effect on crime, but they don't care about numbers. they only care that they can shock and scare people when they show a scary black "assault rifle" or "submachine gun".

 

any public speaker that regularly confuses "assault rifle" with "fully automatic assault weapon" needs to learn the difference before they get on a soap box. the AWB had nothing to do with full auto. full auto has been highly restricted since the 1930s...but your grandma could've bought one mail order back in the day.

 

had a discussions with a friend and his girlfriend about the ban a few months ago. the girl asked, "why would you need a handgun with more than 10rds?". not a bad question. i replied, "because there might not be only 1 person breaking into your house trying to rape you, it might be 4 people." she said, "i never thought about more than 1 person trying to kill me"

 

like they say, the 2nd amendment isn't about duck hunting. it's about defending yourself, your loved ones, and your property. a politician saying "i support hunters rights" usually translates to "i'm not trying to take all of you guns...just the scary ones" i don't hunt. maybe next year i'll tag along for some deer or duck, but the ability to hunt is insignificant compared to the ability to defend yourself with a weapon that fits the bill. i live in a small house, so i'm happy with an "assault shotgun". if i lived on a larger property, i'd prefer an "assault rifle". hunter's rights has nothing to do with personal protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) is what regulates true "Assault Weapons" and was NOT affected in any way, shape, or form by the 1994 AWB and will not be affected by current bills put forth.

 

If you want to see where the laws started going wrong, the best place to look is the 1939 US v Miller case. To get a real good understanding you have to go to the lower court rulings.

 

US V Miller in a nutshell was a case against Miller and his partner for transporting a "sawed off shotgun" between states. The NFA was used to prosecute Miller, but the judge advised Miller to fight it as being unconstitutional and seek legal counsel. He did. Over the next year things went badly for Miller and the case. Miller was found dead prior to the Supreme Court issuing it's ruling, his partner was in jail for other crimes, and his attorney was unable to make it to the Supreme Court to argue the case because he had taken the case on "pro bono" and did not have the funds to make it to D.C. Basically what occurred was that the US was able to argue their case for the NFA without rebuttal from the originator of the appeal.

 

In the ruling, Miller in violation of the NFA applied since the shotgun in question was not currently employed by the US military and therefore the 2nd Amendment did not apply. At the time, the common shotgun in use had been "Trench guns" with barrels around 18-20".

 

Since this ruling, the misinterpretation has been that since the Military uses it, the civilian cannot.

 

Prior to the 1960s, if you look at many yearbooks for High Schools at the time had Shotgun skeet and trap teams (both boys and girls), had marksmanship programs, and in fact were allowed to bring firearms onto campus without a second thought.

 

One thing of note regarding the 1934 NFA, since it went into law, and since the law abiding citizen has abided by that law, NO civilian owned NFA firearm has been used in the committing of a crime by a person that had it legally. The only case that I know of where a legal full auto firearm was used was by a law enforcement officer in the early 80s.

 

As was stated earlier about availability of firearms and the increased revenues to the industry to allow development of future technology or improvements on existing technology is very valid. Another part of this is if regulated full auto firearms were more readily available to the law abiding populace it could possibly drive down the prices paid by LE, military, and government agencies. Imagine if you will, a civilian being able to (and willingly) pay say $2,000 for an actual M4, the manufacturer can then pass on new firearms to the military or LE community at a lower price. That is, of course, they were of the character of John Browning or Barret.

 

Part of the 1994 legislation was the "gun free zones" which has NOT reduced crime or violent criminal acts, but in fact has INCREASED these acts because the very people the law is supposed to be preventing from doing this is giving them a target rich environment of unarmed targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is my favorite parable about firearms and the right to bear arms:

 

http://catb.org/~esr/guns/sheep.html

 

"Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of wolves would prey upon the flock.

 

One day a group of sheep, more bold than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. "Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one dog and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand. What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!"

 

One sheep spoke up, saying "It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it, but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we could fight back, and stop this savagery." The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them into weapons.

 

That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them and cried "Begone! We are not food!" and drove off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth? It was unthinkable!

 

The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out "Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things! You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!"

 

The brave sheep stopped, amazed. "But we are your brethren!" they cried, "We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves, they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!"

 

"Baaaaaaaddd!", cried the flock,"the things are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock. They scare us!". So the armed sheep resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.

 

In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from which more than one wolf did not return. Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep's weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in terror again, "Baaaaaaddddd! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you from our presence!".

 

And so they did. The great chief sheep and his court and council, encouraged by the words of their moneylenders and advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested before the council, saying "It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!". But the flock would not hear, and drowned them out with cries of "Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!".

 

Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying "Baaaaddd! Bad things!".

 

That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep's totems and signs, and said, "Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth! Brothers, let us feed!". And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the slaughter. It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, vowing to each other to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so again. This they did, and do still.

 

In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, "See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!". But the flock cried out, more feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, "Baaaaaaaadddd! These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaaddd!". The other sheep could only hang their heads and sigh. The flock had forgotten that even they possessed teeth; how else could they graze the grasses of the pasture? It was only those who preyed, like the wolves and jackals, who turned their teeth to evil ends. If you pulled their own fangs those beasts would take another's teeth and claws, perhaps even the broad flat teeth of sheep, and turn them to evil purposes.

 

The bold sheep knew that the fangs and claws they possessed had not changed them. They still grazed like other sheep, and raised their lambs in the spring, and greeted their friend the dog as he walked among them. But they could not quell the terror of the flock, which rose in them like some ancient dark smoky spirit and could not be damped by reason, nor dispelled by the light of day.

 

So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.

 

They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Although it is true that your grade might suffer, I have to tell you that I was quite proud when my kids grades suffered for their defense of the truth. They both have Bachelor Degrees and didn't give in on anything. :) Do what you need to.

 

1911

 

I agree. I never sucked up to anyone, I never suger coated anything, and I spoke my mind. A trail of B minuses and C plusses later, and I had my bachelors. No, I'm not going to pretend that I like, Mr. Liberal Asshat Professor.

 

As I'm sure Sgt. Barnes would say to any Liberal Asshat Professor:

 

post-88-1234312219_thumb.jpg

 

You tell 'em, Bob! :super:

Link to post
Share on other sites
To be classified as an "assault weapon" the firearm has to have at least a certain number of "evil features"...such as bayonet, folding stock, pistol grip, muzzle attachments, high capacity detachable mags (or the ability to accept them), barrel shroud (something that goes up...lol), etc... These features don't make a gun any more deadly or dangerous.

 

I beg to differ, As these terms are bastardizations from a FEAR MONGERING bleeding heart liberal standpoint.

 

There is really only one TRUE definition of an ASSAULT WEAPON... And that is the ability to fire in a fully automatic mode.

 

Yes, the gun bans from the feds and states clearly point out "evil features" as characteristics of an "assault weapon" but they are no more true than calling drug dealers "unlicensed pharmacists"... Its just in the terms, and poor ones at that.

 

Make sure those points are WELL ADDRESSED that most military style weapons are in no way shape or form "assault weapons" but are IMPROPERLY classified as such to promote FEAR, MISUNDERSTANDING, and EMPATHY!

 

:smoke:

Furthermore, an "assault rifle" is a longarm chambered for an intermediate round, between a full size battle rifle round such as .308, 8mm or 30.06 and a submachine gun or pistol calibre, 9mm .45 ACP etc. and is capable of select fire, semi-auto and full-auto. The "new" BS terminology the liberals use "assault weapon" as applied to any semi-auto rifle, whether a battle rifle, G3, FN FAL or an AK of AR15 or a semi MP5 clone or M11/9 and this includes shotguns, was delineated in the unconstitutional AWB. However, what these pricks did not contemplate was, as the AWB sunseted or became ex post facto so did the term assault weapon by their reasoning and therefore there is no such thing nor was there ever a semiauto assault weapon. As the ban became defunct, it is legal now to apply cosmetic features to previously legal weapons that during the ban made them illegal so it stands to reason that this classification of firearem no longer applies and can be reasoned that as such never did exist because there is no difference between a pre-ban rifle and a converted post-ban rifle. There is no such thing as a pre-ban or a post-ban rifle since legally there never was a ban as it is not in effect at present therefore, immaterial. This is not the case with 922r compliance which affected non-domestic semi-auto long arms but as such non-domestic semiauto long arms that are 922r compliant may have any cosmetic accoutrament attached for the most part, again rendering the term "assault rifle" inaccurate.

Edited by U.S Praetorian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Here is what I have so far. I suck at writing papers so it's only 3 and a half pages long. I need a little more help on what to put in it. Comments and Critisism is always helpful.

 

It's in wordpad because it won't let me upload .docx

 

AWB.txt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...