A lawyer (not a "gun guy") mentioned to me today that he really couldn't make up his mind about the AWB, and had two points I really couldn't answer in a way that makes sense to anybody not hip-deep in the issue:

1. If the ban covered only cosmetic features, why worry about it? Why not leave it in place? I replied that it was incrementalism - the camel's nose under the tent.

2. He was concerned by the position of "the cops." I pointed out that those aren't policemen, but politicians. He said "Well, it's a lot of them, and they seem to be unanimous. They can't all be hacks." I pointed out that those organizations aren't noted for their civil libertarianism.

Not an argument, just a discussion. I don't think either of my responses is really meaningful to somebody who isn't one of "us." Any suggestions?

Tell him that, as a lawyer, he should either know what the Constitution says or he should give up his law license.

I think you have it all in a nutshell, really.

Ask HIM to justify HIS position with proveable statistics.

Quoted: 1. If the ban covered only cosmetic features, why worry about it? Why not leave it in place? I replied that it was incrementalism - the camel's nose under the tent.

 My argument is that it was not a cosmetic feature ban, but rather a ban on modern firearms alltogether.  The ban effectively turns back the clock to 1935 (save a few MGs & SMGs) in terms of civilian firearms.  Most hunting firearms are modern incarnations of obsolete designs.

2. He was concerned by the position of "the cops." I pointed out that those aren't policemen, but politicians. He said "Well, it's a lot of them, and they seem to be unanimous. They can't all be hacks." I pointed out that those organizations aren't noted for their civil libertarianism.

 Ask him what these same cops think about the 5th, and see how he stands by their opinions.

The Patriot Act doesn't interfere with the day-to-day goings on of most Americans.

Therefore - why does it need a Sunset clause?

(insert nearly identical statement about "most cops" and the PA here)

Quoted: 1. If the ban covered only cosmetic features, why worry about it? Why not leave it in place? I replied that it was incrementalism - the camel's nose under the tent.

Correct. It was the first step in a process. The anti's true goal was to strengthen the ban this year, and there were bills submitted to the House and Senate (the house version had 113 co-sponsors) that would have covered all of the "loopholes" of the first bill. It would have also required surrender of all "post-ban" rifles.

2. He was concerned by the position of "the cops." I pointed out that those aren't policemen, but politicians. He said "Well, it's a lot of them, and they seem to be unanimous. They can't all be hacks." I pointed out that those organizations aren't noted for their civil libertarianism.

Opinions are irrelevant. Your's is, mine is, "the cops" is. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental civil liberty that cannot be infringed without amending the US constitution. Why we have allowed it to be is beyond me.

Use car analogy. Does the gov't have the right to tell my what kind of engine, wheels, windows, color, etc my car should have/be as long as it doesn't break the law? Its about big government, why does the gov't have the right to tell me what accessories I can put on my property?

eg: I have a SUV, can't tow my boat the way I want so I get a bigger engine, wider wheels and repaint it my favorite color. The engine is legal (pollution), the wheels are legal, and the paint is legal. Now gov't tells me I can't have that combination of cosmetic features because thats the favorite of gang bangers. I change the color but when the law expires I change back because it is my favorite.

Quoted: A lawyer (not a "gun guy") mentioned to me today that he really couldn't make up his mind about the AWB, and had two points I really couldn't answer in a way that makes sense to anybody not hip-deep in the issue: 1. If the ban covered only cosmetic features, why worry about it? Why not leave it in place? I replied that it was incrementalism - the camel's nose under the tent. 2. He was concerned by the position of "the cops." I pointed out that those aren't policemen, but politicians. He said "Well, it's a lot of them, and they seem to be unanimous. They can't all be hacks." I pointed out that those organizations aren't noted for their civil libertarianism. Not an argument, just a discussion. I don't think either of my responses is really meaningful to somebody who isn't one of "us." Any suggestions?

1.)  should parts of his car be banned because they look nice? (BTW, the magazine ban wasn't cosmetic)

2.)  cops aren't elected representatives.  why is he concerned with the position of "the cops", yet he is not concerned with the position of the NRA?  this is like being concerned with the position of hollywood movie stars.

1) It's not about cosmetic features. It's about a law that makes no sense. It's bad legislation, written to pacify a few, and further distilled by the usual sort of wrangling that accompanies controversial measures. The ban did absolutely nothing to reduce crime, which is precisely what it was supposed to do. Remember? It was associated with the 1994 Clinton Crime Bill.

2) The FOP is not "the cops." It is a trade union that represents police officers, and as such is generally beholden to the liberal party line. The unions have a vested interest in leftist condidates and issues. I can't believe that any legitimate law enforcement organization that truly understands the scope and body of the AWB would be interested in supporting its extension. In fact, I see the required enforcement of such an ambiguous and malformed piece of legislation as an unfunded mandate on local law enforcement. The very nature of the law, and the state laws that it spawned, seek to criminalize individuals for acts that were perfectly legal when they were committed. In California and other states, the law DID lead to registration, and it DID lead to confiscation (without reimbursement) of personal property.

Next?

I hate to have to justify reasons to be able to own firearms, but if he is specifically asking for justification of "banned" parts under the AWB. tell him that a collapsible stock is perfect for letting small framed men/women/children shoot an AR. not eveyone can fit a standard stock, and when teaching several different people to shoot it is easier to just move the stock position than swapping out stocks for smaller people.

Get him into an impassioned defense of the 5th and 1st Amendment, then ask him why the 2nd should get the same respect?

Quoted: He said "Well, it's a lot of them, and they seem to be unanimous. They can't all be hacks."

The hacks just made all of the noise.

Brent

Quoted: Get him into an impassioned defense of the 5th and 1st Amendment, then ask him why the 2nd should get the same respect?

i tried that with the aclu.  didn't work.

What DzlBenz said plus:

Quoted: 2. He was concerned by the position of "the cops." I pointed out that those aren't policemen, but politicians. He said "Well, it's a lot of them, and they seem to be unanimous. They can't all be hacks." I pointed out that those organizations aren't noted for their civil libertarianism.

Definitely not unanimous.  Try pointing him to LEAA.org - "The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) is the nation's largest non-profit, non-partisan coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens united for justice."  One of the goals listed on their website: "communicate the shared opinion of the majority of law enforcement officers that gun control is not an effective method of crime control".

I think I read that this group also supports national concealed carry for all (not just cops).

CR

Quoted: Tell him that, as a lawyer, he should either know what the Constitution says or he should give up his law license.

+1

Shoot his dog, stick it in his pooper and post pictures.

Quoted: A lawyer (not a "gun guy") mentioned to me today that he really couldn't make up his mind about the AWB, and had two points I really couldn't answer in a way that makes sense to anybody not hip-deep in the issue: 1. If the ban covered only cosmetic features, why worry about it? Why not leave it in place?

We did. Sunset clause and all.

But seriously, there are 19 firearms specifically listed BY NAME that were banned as in no one can produce any more.  

What if the gov't had named 19 BOOKS that were no longer able to be legally published?

2. He was concerned by the position of "the cops." I pointed out that those aren't policemen, but politicians. He said "Well, it's a lot of them, and they seem to be unanimous. They can't all be hacks."

So now in addition to enforcing laws, we're giving cops deference in WRITING the laws too?  

Does this lawyer also think that, because of their great wisdom, jurisprudence and obvious grasp of the law and the Constitution, that cops should replace attorneys and judges in addition to legislators too?

If that's not enough, I bet if you gave 10 cops a "post-ban" AR and ask them if that was prohibited under the "Assault Weapon" Ban - you'd be lucky if four of them gave the correct answer.

I wish people would get off of this "cosmetic features" nonsense.  The ban was not intended to get rid of bayo lugs and/or threaded barrels.  They thought what they were doing was describing all of the weapons they wished to ban.  They fucked up, and you should be glad that they did.  You should also know that they won't do so again.  Their desire to renew the ban had little to do with it being productive or non-productive, it had to do with losing ground.  They have slipped a notch now, and they will have to recover.  I fear that when they do it will make the '94 ban look like a 4473 in terms of it's impact on our rights.

Try this:

I'll skip the simple argument of "recreation". I'll also skip the analogies such as drag racers, "why does anyone need that much horsepower".. etc.

Your question is a valid one and deserves a valid lucid answer.

First:

At the core of this debate is the Second Amendment. Many that have posted, including me, believe that the while the Second Amendment grants certain rights, that responsibilities are imparted with those rights.

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment

You will note that it says a "well-regulated militia". This is one of the responisbilities that I believe are core to the Second Amendment. While firearms ownership should be protected at all costs simply because it is a God given right to protect oneself, the responsibility to have the skills necessary to employ your weapons in the defense of your self, your family, your country and your freedom is paramount. This clause exists to remind people that freedoms must be protected at all costs. Threats may come from outside the government or inside. It is a catch-all phrase insuring that this nation remain "of the people, for the people and by the people". The Second Amendment protects the right to own assault weapons, and applies the responsibility of using them to combat threats to our freedoms both foreign and domestic.

Second:

These weapons are used in nationally recognized sporting events. International Practical Shooters Coalition (IPSC), International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) and numerous local and national organizations promote the sporting aspect of shooting. Not only that, but they also practice skills at arms and tactics which help satisfy the Second Amendment responsibility I mentioned above. When competing in these events, generally they are scored based on time to complete a course or a set of actions. If you ever watch one of these competitions, you will immediatly recognize the immense benefit of having firearms that can fire rapidly, accurately and with as few magazine changes to waste time as possible. Here is a short video clip of a young man competing to illustrate my point.

http://www.krtraining.com/IPSC/Matches/2002/TxStateLimited/stages/stage5/NATHANSt5.AVI

Third:

And quite possibly most importantly, self defense. Military small arms (pistols, shotguns, assault rifles) are designed so that they may be employed by a wide variety of troops. They are specifically made to fit the average sized individual, or with minimal effort, be modified for use by larger or smaller than average individuals. They are made to be maintained relatively easily. They are made to be durable, reliable, cost effective to produce and effective. When not otherwise employed in sporting or hunting roles, military small arms are primarily used to protect something by applying deadly force to neutralize the threat to life, liberty and the LAWFUL pursuit of happiness.

Because military small arms are designed with these considerations, they are extremely effective in a self defense role. Because of their simple operating procedures, I can, with minimal instruction, feel confident that my wife (or other family member) can employ deadly force in self defense. I can be fairly assured that the application of deadly force with military small arms is going to be effective at neutralizing threats to my family. I cannot be so assured with other hunting or sporting specific firearms.

Conclusion:

The media is correct in saying that assault weapons are "killing machines", just as I am correct in using the same term when refering to automobiles. To say that they serve no purpose in civilian hands is the cry of the uninformed. As law-abiding Second Ammendment proponants, it is our job to protect the rights, priviledges and fulfil the responsibilities I've outlined above. I really hope that at some point you might join that fight considering that it is the application of deadly force by military weaponry that guarantees your right to question thier legitimacy.

I hope this helps.
WolverineAtWork