Granted Im not an American, and I dont know the details, but as I read this, Americans are some how different to non-Americans. Is that correct?
It reads like Americans get special protection that non Americans cant get in the hands of US law? Seems some what odd to me that all this is about Americans being held indefinitely with out trial, but for foreigners, do what you like. Aren't humans equal to Americans or US law? Seems to me that this stealthy legislation simply makes all human beings equal in US law, or at least closes the gap. How is that wrong? It just means Americans will also suffer at the hands of the US government, like non Americans do. Fair enough, no? I note there is no concern to afford non-Americans the same protections Americans get.
Besides, from abroad, it very much looks like Americans are more concerned about keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes to be used against the odd burglar, than freedom, health, etc.
Like I say, Im not an American and I really don't know the subtleties, but it all seems a bit skewed to me.
This is widely debated in America; take a look at the debates over illegal immigrants some time, especially among people from states that border with Mexico.
"Americans are more concerned about keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes"
It is illegal to keep most military weapons in one's home in America; anything beyond a sidearm is too heavily regulated in this country. When you see pictures of Americans with military-style rifles, what you are actually looking at are civilian variants like the AR-15, which do not have a "full-auto" or "burst" mode.
As an American, I can tell you what my view on this is: AR-15s and AK-47s are not the problem here. It is relatively rare for such guns to be used by criminals. Tens of thousands of people are murdered with guns each year in this country, and the majority of those murders involve handguns. While we do get the occasion lunatic who goes on a rampage with a rifle (like the recent tragedy in Connecticut, although even he carried handguns), what is more common is gang violence, and gangs prefer guns they can conceal easily: handguns. A common pattern in home burglaries is for the thief to check nightstands, dresser drawers, and other places people commonly hide handguns, because handguns are in high demand on the black market.
This seems like a caricature so I'm hesitant to respond in the length that this would otherwise merit. (Not saying that you know everything you claim to be ignorant on, but rather that you are caricaturing the American people which makes it difficult to know where your knowledge ends and your ignorance begins.) It also has the kind of political overtones that I'd love to discuss elsewhere, just not on HN.
I'm not sure which country you are from but to be honest, the "all humans are equal under law" thing doesn't fly in Europe either. A relatively recent example is the German law that dictates that all non-German residents, when they marry someone overseas, should have their spouse pass a German language proficiency exam. German citizens are not required to do so. There are many other examples from Germany, and other European countries.
Bad example. I'm a German citizen and my wife had to take the language exam in order to become eligible for permanent residency. Not because of any extraordinary circumstances either, just as a matter of course.
I know this for a fact not only because we were subjected to it but because at the time I read up on the pertaining law. (Sorry, too lazy to dig it up now.)
Besides, from abroad, it very much looks like Americans are more concerned about keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes to be used against the odd burglar, than freedom, health, etc.
If the U.S. government does decide to finally completely abandon the 5th Amendment (not an unrealistic possibility), we might need those 'hard core military weapons'. In reality, that means semi-automatic variants of standard infantry rifles, which is what many police in America keep in the trunk of their patrol car.
Also, it's possible to be concerned about all of those things you mentioned. Many of us are. I think if these odd lunatics had access to better mental health care, we wouldn't be having the 'assault weapon' debate every 6 months.
I realize you may be exaggerating for effect, but in case you've actually been misled by sensationalist media into believing this, let me inform you that there is no significant constituency in the US for "keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes".
I feel like at least half the men I know would love to purchase ridiculously overpowered and expensive weapons. Most already do; they'd buy more if they could.
Civilians haven't been able to register fully-automatic weapons in America since 1986. I suppose they could buy a grandfathered-in weapon that was on the registry before then, but if that's the case, you have some seriously wealthy friends.
Perhaps you're thinking of the semi-automatic versions available to civilians, but once you turn an 'assault rifle' into a semi-automatic it's no more lethal than a semi-automatic hunting rifle, and the label is largely cosmetic.
The AR-15 that lunatic recently used certainly looks scary, but since the rounds it takes are significantly less powerful than those used by your typical boring old hunting rifle, what's the point of the distinction?
Thank you. And my point was that mainstream organizations such as the NRA do not push for assault rifles and other military weapons to be re-legalized for civilians, nor is there any significant clamoring for this.
Having fired some of their weapons, I disagree that there is no difference between an AK-47 or AR-15 and a hunting rifle. Magazine size and ease of reloading make a difference. Semi-automatic weapons such as the AK-47, AR-15 or even SKS can still be manually fired at high rates, with easy reloading. They were designed for combat, not hunting, and even removing their fully-automatic capability, they're still quite effective.
Yes, this is sort of true, depending on the rifle. Some hunting rifles are as efficient as an AR-15, and some aren't.
The ease of reloading a hunting rifle depends on the type of magazine it takes. Internal box or rotary magazines will be slow to reload, since you've got to feed the bullets into the magazine. (Yeah, a stripper clip speeds this up, but only so much.) But there's plenty of hunting rifles with external box magazines, which can be reloaded as fast as any gun with detachable box magazines.
A semi-automatic's a semi-automatic. There's no real difference in rate of fire once the bullets are loaded. (I suppose a heavier trigger pull might slow you down a little.)
Aftermarket magazine capacity isn't that different if you're using a box magazine, but the bigger the magazine, the more likely it jams, making the big magazine sort of moot.
It's true that there aren't many (any? I've never seen one) high-capacity drum magazines for hunting rifles, but personally I'd rather leave those on the market as a honeypot for idiots. The damn things jam all the bloody time and clearing the jam takes at least as long as reloading a detachable box magazine (and possibly forever, if you're just some random sociopath with no firearms knowledge who just bought whatever looked scary).
I guess the possible magazine sizes play a role here. I can't imagine a hunting rifle with a 100 round mag. And aren't most of them bolt action, that is, not even semi-automatic?
The thing is, there's no clearly defined set of characteristics that makes a firearm "military", "hunting", "sniper" or any other purpose. There are bolt-action rifles that take 20-round detachable magazines[0] and semi-automatics that only hold 4[1]. Incidentally, putting some different accessories on that same rifle makes it look like a military weapon[2].
The primary functional difference between guns labeled "military-style" or "assault" and "sporting" or "hunting" is a detachable magazine with larger capacity. One might think that regulating those would be an effective means of mitigating the impact of criminal acts with guns, but that was tried and did not appear to have the desired effect[3].
The lunatic who attacked the school was not trained, but was also attacking cornered, defenseless children at short range. Practically any firearm would have been used in this attack to equivalent effect.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that might have stopped this (once it started) would have been a police officer at the school or an armed teacher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting). We might have better been able to prevent the shooting from taking place at all with better mental health care. They weren't even his guns, so gun control that inspects the purchaser would not have worked.
The framers of the American Constitution punted on two things: 1) where did the Constitution apply; and 2) who did the Constitution apply to. From British practice, it is clear that the Constitution at least applies to U.S. Citizens on American soil, but beyond that it's not so clear. Non-citizens on American soil have certain protections, as do U.S. Citizens not on American soil, but because these issues aren't addressed in the Constitution the law is a bit of a patchwork.
Civil liberties groups "aren't shedding any tears over the demise of
the Feinstein-Lee amendment," because they objected to the fact
that it protected only U.S. citizens and permanent residents, rather
than all persons present in the United States.
It reads like Americans get special protection that non Americans cant get in the hands of US law? Seems some what odd to me that all this is about Americans being held indefinitely with out trial, but for foreigners, do what you like. Aren't humans equal to Americans or US law? Seems to me that this stealthy legislation simply makes all human beings equal in US law, or at least closes the gap. How is that wrong? It just means Americans will also suffer at the hands of the US government, like non Americans do. Fair enough, no? I note there is no concern to afford non-Americans the same protections Americans get.
Besides, from abroad, it very much looks like Americans are more concerned about keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes to be used against the odd burglar, than freedom, health, etc.
Like I say, Im not an American and I really don't know the subtleties, but it all seems a bit skewed to me.