It must really suck to be a deer in today's world. With sprawl, pollution and ecosystems in disarray life must be hard on poor Bambi. And at 12:01am Monday, it's about to get even worse – because that's when the Clinton passed Assult Rifle Ban is set to be repealed.
I mention deer only because while doing research about the topic I came across this post by user JesusCyborg on a gun board: "You don't think guns are awesome? Well to each their own. I do. I can't wait to get my hands on an assault rifle so I can pump some deer full of lead."
So maybe that is that. Maybe a bunch of rednecks will take uzis and AK-47s into the woods and hunt nature the way we conduct our foreign policy: with overwhelming unilateral military force (will the deer will have to wage an asymmetrical war, kidnapping journalists and getting box cutters that fit in hooves?). Maybe there is nothing to really fear here.
But the police, who probably have more of an expertise than 'jesuscyborg' in these matters, disagree. There is talk of a more 'militaristic' approach to policing. Armored vehicles will become more prevalent among law enforcement. AV's will have to become standard for simple robbery cases. As anyone who has been around law enforcement or guns knows, there is a world of difference from a deer rifle and an uzi, if only for the mental state of the person holding it. As the man points out above, guns are 'awesome', and bigger assult rifles in your hands are the equivalent of a hit of PCP in the "I can take on 6 cops" department.
above: what the framers had in mind.
Will the government step in? "I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire" said majority leader Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee. "If the president asked me, it would still be no," chirped in Representative Tom DeLay of Texas. President Bush said he supports a renewal and would sign it, but he hasn't pushed very hard. Or at all for that matter. Great job having it both ways; I hope no crackheads jump you with an Uzi on the way to cash all those NRA checks.
"But Mike, even with the ban criminals already have access to these guns if they want them." Maybe my formal background in math logic is working against me, but doesn't then repealing the ban mean even more criminals will have access to them? And worse, with the market flooded won't prices drop, allowing your more broke, desperate and likely to shoot you for a Social Security check variety of criminals larger access to these weapons? And isn't that a bad thing? There is only so much you can argue the tautology "more access will result in more access."
"But Mike, with the weapon ban repealed I can purchase assult rifles to protect my wife, children and three-step ranch home." That is an excellent point, and ginandtacos.com would love to help you out. Now for various PR reasons, the gun industry is keeping it's mouth shut with how much it is salivating at the idea of expanding this market come Monday, so it is hard (and techinically still illegal) to find places online where you can order these guns. And legally (damn Clinton!) guns of this nature that are produced before Monday have to be 'marked' with law enforcement stickering, reducing their sales worth, so we have a few more days before actual production. But come the time, we will have a running list of online ordering sites for the new weapons with which you can "shock and awe" the deer, cheating spouses and late-night gas station attendees of America.
Until then, here are the semi-automatic fruits of what is to come:
I'm not a hunter, but do people ever bayonet deer? more to come.
Ambrosini says:
Who wouldn't want a bayonet? You are clearly missing the point that when America is invaded, that we all need assault rifles to protect our mini vans and computers.
Ed says:
I can think of a myriad of legitimate reasons for owning a flash suppressor, which snipers use to disguise their position by concealing visual evidence of their direction of fire.
Like sniping, for instance.
kat says:
I only bayonet deer when they've really pissed me off.
Ambrosini says:
Can anyone really give a good answer as to why there was a ban on bayonets in the first place? It's not like they are a huge threat to people as they are connected to a assault rifle.
But who is going out to buy an AK 47 today? I know I am…
Ed says:
I was sort of wondering that myself. If an individual is intent on hurting you and is close enough to do it with a bayonet, chances are you are already fucked irrespective of whether or not he has a bayonet.
mike says:
I think, but am not sure, that it is part of a blanket ban on modifying semi-automatic assult rifles. If you are into such things, you could modify a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic – this puts an emphasis on not customizing your weaponary.
In 24 hours an 18-year can go out to a store an buy an uzi. wonderful.
Bob says:
Flash hidders are designed to reduce flash signature (not elimate) of a high power rifle. Flash is produced right after the bullet leaves the barrel and only last a split sec. It is to help protect solider from being spotted by the opposing soliders who is actively searching for him. In our daily lives, I don't think anyone is "actively" searching for a gun flash. Besides, real military snipers uses rifles "without" a flash hidder as it hinders accurcy. So a flash hidder for a civilian version of the "black rifle" is really cosmatic.
As for the bayonet lug, it is designed for the last ditch effort to fight hand to hand in war. Why knife someone when you can shoot them at a distance? Again it is cosmatic.
Ban rifles based on looks is just mornic. And has anyone check the price of these so call "assult rifles"? If someone can spent hundreds or thousands of dollars for a gun, I don't think he needs to rob anyone. And if he intend someone harm, then he'll just find another way. Remember it just take one bullet. A clay shotgun like John Kerry proudly display on National TV will do the job as well.
Our national freeway system kills more people than any crime combine. But I don't see people rushing to ban the SUVs, Sports Cars, or Semi-Trucks. Yes, they were not designed specifically to kill, but they seems to do a lot more efficent job at it.
Sorry if I sounded like a "gun nut" but we really need to focus on our society, instead finding an easy way out.
mike says:
Well, Clinton was focusing on society. He declared some guns illegal to own (we'll come back to that), put a significantly larger amount of police on the street, and flooded C.O.P.S. (community policing) and after school initiatives and programs with funding and support. All but the first were "focused on society" and, maybe because of this, crime dropped significantly during the mid-to-late 90s.
All of these things have been allowed to expire or have their funding cut during the Bush administration.
The focus isn't on flash suppressors or bayonets. Last time I checked Uzis don't have slots for bayonets (though the image is quite funny to think of). People who are against this bill are focusing on the non-sensical parts of it as if it represented the whole of the law.
So I agree with you that bayonets/flash suppressors could be legal. why not? my question back to you: What about uzis and semi ak-47s? Should we be able to buy them at a KMart? (and trust me, once the law is repealed the prices will drop – they are so expensive right now because they haven't been produced for civilian consumption in a decade)
Ben Polson says:
I wasn't sure if you knew this or not but here in Nebraska it is LEGAL for me to go out lets just say 1 month ago and buy a….
FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN, WITH A FLASH SURPRESSOR, AND A SILENCER,
If I wanted to. Only if I were in possesion of a,
Class 3 Federal Firearms License (these are avalible to anyone for about a $300 fee) this license takes about 3 monthes to get. That is because the feds look at every thing you have ever done in the past. I mean this background search would let them know that you cheated during your 3rd grade spelling test 40 years ago. Also to do what I purposed above I would need approximately Twenty Thousand Dollars!!!! lets see that with the zeros…
$20,000.00
To me the price itself is the biggest deterent from owning a fully automatic gun.
It will cost around $750 to $1,000 for an assualt rifle I would guess. I don't know about you but I don't have that kind of cash laying around.
I thank you for allowing other people to respond to the articles that you have written here.
Have a Nice Day.
Freedom is NOT free!
Ed says:
If anyone can explain to me how the "good" that comes from people who will use assault weapons in a safe in legitimate manner will outweigh the "bad" from making them cheaper and more readily available, I'd love to hear it.
Basically, since no one in their right mind really feels they need an assault weapon to defend their home from burglars, the "benefit" of having such weapons for sale is that…..sportsmen who like guns will be able to play with them.
Every instance of negative liberty in the law is a balancing act between the positives and negatives of a prohibition. I just don't see the math here. At all.
The "bad" of banning all guns clearly outweighs the good. It would be unfair to refuse people the right to defend themselves, hunt, or participate in a recreational activity. But the "bad" of banning highly-leathal, highly concealable assault weapons that have no sporting or legitimate purpose (do you hunt with an Uzi? Do you need an Uzi to defend your home? Does an Uzi have any purpose except as a concealable offensive weapon?) is not great.
It is not an anti-gun bias that causes anyone in their right mind to question things like this. Just because we have the right to bear arms does not mean we need the right and ability to bear any and every kind of firearm. Everything that can potentially have negative effects is subject to some sort of limit. Stimulants are legal, cocaine is not. Dynamite is legal, Semtex is not. Rifles and handguns are legal, submachine guns are not.
Well, they are now.