Assault Rifle

[TwiceHorn 31240]

Well, the issue that I have with the Brady Bill was the number of loopholes and grandfathers.  It wasn't a flat ban on large cap mags.

I don't really harbor any illusions that restricting a particular type of weapon will inevitably reduce gun violence, but I acknowledge that it might and I'm willing to experiment on a small segment of vilified weapons with limited non-lethal utility.

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well mine, probably buried, is ban semiauto centerfire rifles/long gun with mag caps greater than five rounds (plus one in the chamber).  What we lose from that is the ability to blow the shit out of watermelons or hogs or water jugs or whatever with 20-25 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger.  What we gain perhaps is some warm fuzzies that crazed maniacs won't be able to discharge those 20-25 rounds into teens or moviegoers or whatever, but will have to do it in five round increments.

Yahoos can still blast away with rimfires, and bird hunters keep their 1100s, 1187s, Benellis, Berettas etc.

It would also give us a vivid look into the problem of pre-existing large cap mags and black markets for same.

I'll buy the theory.  I don't understand the practice.

What do you do about the existing inventory?  We're talking about tens of millions of rifles.

How do you specify the magazine?  Do you have a spec which makes it extremely difficult to use a larger magazine?  How would that work?

Is what you're banning more deadly than a machine pistol (semi-auto version)?

 

It's another topic, and I don't have expertise, but if I were going to shoot up a school an AR-style rifle would not be my weapon of choice.  I'd use a small caliber machine pistol.  I could aim it like a rifle and be accurate at short range.   It'd be much more easy to handle than a rifle.  My accuracy with a true pistol or a large caliber gun sucks.  I'll bet I could rock and roll with a machine pistol with a stock with a small caliber.

[TwiceHorn 31240]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I realize this has moved into "gun control" and away from "assault weapons", but I don't want to wade into that other thread.

I recently had a conversation with a guy who made a pretty compelling point for his high-capacity high-rate weapons on his ranch, far removed from first responders, etc.  It led to a soft conclusion on my part that perhaps a better solution would be some sort of shift in graduated licensing where such weapons aren't completely outlawed but rather subject to stricter standards of ownership.  To say that I can assert the solution right at the moment would be lying . . . but it seems like it could be a reasonable compromise.

I could get on board with this, too.  For the aforementioned large cap, semi-auto center-fire rifles.

[Gatorubet 30083]

2 hours ago, Heavy 6 said:

 

Good brainstorm coming up with ideas of infringing civil liberties, guys.

Well, turns out, Heavy6 is not the arbiter of civil liberties.  The courts are, with SCOTUS having the final say .  And the Heller decision leaves in place the government's right to regulate many aspects of gun ownership.   I assume that you read it.  Because SCOTUS decides what regulations are allowable. 

The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Heller said some things you should know. 

1. Government may prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons;

2. Government may restrict “the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill”;

3. Government may forbid “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”;

4. Governments may impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”; and

5. Government may prohibit the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

 

So the first obvious point is that nothing infringes on a civil liberty, in a legal sense , until the last court says it does (or does not).   The second is that there is a shit-ton of ambiguity right now about those five allowable government limitations on the unbridled Second Amendment.   So limiting high capacity round mags are at least arguably within #s 4 and 5 above.  

With the NRA and SAF filing suit on most restrictions, that ambiguity will be cleaned up with time.   Not sensibly trying to reach a compromise could well lead the Court to issue an interpretation that is even more limiting than the one a government is proposing.   So you have to watch what you ask for.     

 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Gatorubet

[Anastasis 23390]

6 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Anyone that needs to fire off 10 rounds at a fucking hog needs to put the fucking gun down and go look for a cure for their Parkinson's. I grew up hunting game with bolt-action rifles, and it's my opinion that if you need to hunt with a semi-automatic rifle, you're a fucking pussy. How bah dah?

how the fuck am I suppose to shoot them out of the helicopter with a bolt action?  answer me that smart guy?

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Anastasis

[TwiceHorn 31240]

3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I'll buy the theory.  I don't understand the practice.

What do you do about the existing inventory?  We're talking about tens of millions of rifles.

How do you specify the magazine?  Do you have a spec which makes it extremely difficult to use a larger magazine?  How would that work?

Is what you're banning more deadly than a machine pistol (semi-auto version)?

 

It's another topic, and I don't have expertise, but if I were going to shoot up a school an AR-style rifle would not be my weapon of choice.  I'd use a small caliber machine pistol.  I could aim it like a rifle and be accurate at short range.   It'd be much more easy to handle than a rifle.  My accuracy with a true pistol or a large caliber gun sucks.  I'll bet I could rock and roll with a machine pistol with a stock with a small caliber.

I think I added some after you posted.  Yes, there are glaring holes in my proposal like existing stock, black market, etc.  We could see what that really means, though.

And this last paragraph, I'm not sure the crazies make totally rational firearm choices.  I think one reason "assault weapons" are sort of the weapon of choice is simple popularity and what the nutbag thinks he can do with it as opposed to a Browning Hi Power or 1911, based on urban mythology.

Edited March 30, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23390]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

Well, turns out, Heavy6 is not the arbiter of civil liberties. 

The final arbiter of civil liberties is THIS MOFUCKING AK47 RIGHT HERE!

 

Joking aside, the ability to defend yourself, with force if necessary, is the last defense one has if their life and liberties are being threatened. 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Anastasis

[Brian Fantana 6667]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

I'll buy the theory.  I don't understand the practice.

What do you do about the existing inventory?  We're talking about tens of millions of rifles.

How do you specify the magazine?  Do you have a spec which makes it extremely difficult to use a larger magazine?  How would that work?

Is what you're banning more deadly than a machine pistol (semi-auto version)?

 

It's another topic, and I don't have expertise, but if I were going to shoot up a school an AR-style rifle would not be my weapon of choice.  I'd use a small caliber machine pistol.  I could aim it like a rifle and be accurate at short range.   It'd be much more easy to handle than a rifle.  My accuracy with a true pistol or a large caliber gun sucks.  I'll bet I could rock and roll with a machine pistol with a stock with a small caliber.

I'd probably use a Vector.

https://www.academy.com/shop/pdp/kriss-vector-gen-ii-crb-10mm-auto-semiautomatic-rifle#repChildCatid=4865660

I had the pleasure of shooting one of these at the range a couple years ago when the Gen 2 models were first released. Always been a fan.

[BabaYaga 15205]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I realize this has moved into "gun control" and away from "assault weapons", but I don't want to wade into that other thread.

I recently had a conversation with a guy who made a pretty compelling point for his high-capacity high-rate weapons on his ranch, far removed from first responders, etc.  It led to a soft conclusion on my part that perhaps a better solution would be some sort of shift in graduated licensing where such weapons aren't completely outlawed but rather subject to stricter standards of ownership.  To say that I can assert the solution right at the moment would be lying . . . but it seems like it could be a reasonable compromise.

For law abiding citizens, sure.  That are already following the litany of existing gun laws.  But for those intent on breaking existing laws, how is this a deterrent?  Access?  It's not practical as it's not enforceable.  Nor do the prior statistics provide conclusive evidence they would even be effective?   Cruz had smoke grenades.  How'd he get those?  He planned.  How hard would it be to procure a few of the hundreds of millions of higher capacity mags in circulation?  These are not crimes of passion, but rather planning.  He was able to fire while wearing a gas mask.  if you think this is easy amongst smoke and chaos, give it a try.  It's clear this kid trained.  He had an exit strategy to dissolve amongst the fleeing chaos of kids.  But a 10rd mag ban stops him?

[jimmyjazz 45538]

Gaborubet hints at another aspect that I didn't touch on . . . the courts might end up making this a worse outcome for the gun enthusiasts.  Or better.  They're to some degree a wild card, given the surprising positions held by conservative justices like Burger and Scalia.  Former Justice Stevens posited a couple of weeks ago that abolition of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be absurd, for crying out loud.

But whether it's the courts or the people and their elected representatives, I think it's clear that there is a shift underway to limiting ownership of certain types of weapons that are currently legal.  The current gun enthusiast narrative is not in their own best interests.

[Gatorubet 30083]

Just now, Anastasis said:

The final arbiter of civil liberties is THIS MOFUCKING AK47 RIGHT HERE!

 

Joking aside, the ability to defend yourself, with force if necessary, is the last defense one has if their life and liberties are being threatened. 

 

Which is why no rational person or court says that gun ownership for home protection is illegal. It can never be.   Your right to have full auto weapons and Stinger missiles in your house near an airport to fight off the potential thread of the Russian Airforce?  Not so much.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

For law abiding citizens, sure.  That are already following the litany of existing gun laws.  But for those intent on breaking existing laws, how is this a deterrent?  Access?  It's not practical as it's not enforceable.  Nor do the prior statistics provide conclusive evidence they would even be effective?

Well gee whiz golly we better not make any new laws about anything because people might break 'em.

[BabaYaga 15205]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Well gee whiz golly we better not make any new laws about anything because people might break 'em.

Then explain for this is enforceable....

[TwiceHorn 31240]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

Which is why no rational person or court says that gun ownership for home protection is illegal. It can never be.   Your right to have full auto weapons and Stinger missiles in your house near an airport to fight off the potential thread of the Russian Airforce?  Not so much.

What about the USAF?  Gimme my MANPADs!

[jimmyjazz 45538]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

For law abiding citizens, sure.  That are already following the litany of existing gun laws.  But for those intent on breaking existing laws, how is this a deterrent?  Access?  It's not practical as it's not enforceable.  Nor do the prior statistics provide conclusive evidence they would even be effective?   Cruz had smoke grenades.  How'd he get those?  He planned.  How hard would it be to procure a few of the hundreds of millions of higher capacity mags in circulation?  These are not crimes of passion, but rather planning.  He was able to fire while wearing a gas mask.  if you think this is easy amongst smoke and chaos, give it a try.  It's clear this kid trained.  He had an exit strategy to dissolve amongst the fleeing chaos of kids.  But a 10rd mag ban stops him?

Great point.  Or not.  Maybe this kid wouldn't have been stopped.  Maybe he just would have been slowed down and ONLY 14 KIDS WOULD HAVE LOST THEIR FUCKING LIVES.

[Gatorubet 30083]

5 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'd probably use a Vector.

https://www.academy.com/shop/pdp/kriss-vector-gen-ii-crb-10mm-auto-semiautomatic-rifle#repChildCatid=4865660

I had the pleasure of shooting one of these at the range a couple years ago when the Gen 2 models were first released. Always been a fan.

[Heavy 6 68]

19 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Well, turns out, Heavy6 is not the arbiter of civil liberties.  The courts are, with SCOTUS having the final say .  And the Heller decision leaves in place the government's right to regulate many aspects of gun ownership.   I assume that you read it.  Because SCOTUS decides what regulations are allowable. 
The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Heller said some things you should know. 

1. Government may prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons;
2. Government may restrict “the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill”;
3. Government may forbid “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”;
4. Governments may impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”; and
5. Government may prohibit the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

 
So the first obvious point is that nothing infringes on a civil liberty, in a legal sense , until the last court says it does (or does not).   The second is that there is a shit-ton of ambiguity right now about those five allowable government limitations on the unbridled Second Amendment.   So limiting high capacity round mags are at least arguably within #s 4 and 5 above.  
With the NRA and SAF filing suit on most restrictions, that ambiguity will be cleaned up with time.   Not sensibly trying to reach a compromise could well lead the Court to issue an interpretation that is even more limiting than the one a government is proposing.   So you have to watch what you ask for.     
 
 

 

The majority of nine people don’t determine our rights here, or in North Korea for that matter.

If you believe that way, fine.

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Heavy 6

[bernorange 8348]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll bite for the sake of expository debate.  I'm probably more on your side than jimmy's.  But, while I acknowledge a great deal of personal utility in shooting sports and related activity to include hunting, both licensed for game and unlicensed for varmint/pest species, I am willing to concede that blasting 20 rounds in 30 seconds from any firearm has limited utility and therefore ought to be within legislative reach.

The superior characteristics of the AR-15 are the foundation of it's utility in self defense and it's check on tyranny.  History is replete with lessons in "might makes right" and the tyranny that results from an unarmed (or inadequately armed) populace.  In medieval times, a man's skill with a sword set a wide gulf between the haves and the have nots.  The evolution of weaponry has narrowed that gap.  The FN FAL was once characterized as the "right arm of the free world".  It leveled the playing field.  The AR-15 is superior the FN FAL.  Folks talk about nuclear weapons as a deterrent.  The greatest utility of modern firearms lies in the same dynamic IMO.

A lot of arguments I have seen in the gun control threads (both here and at the old site) are grounded in the same assumptions about stability in our society - politically (because we can vote) and economically (for the life of me, I don't understand this as 2007-2008 should have disillusioned anyone who was paying attention).  I don't concede those assumptions to be certain in perpetuity. 

My family history is a bit different from most.  I have ancestors that fled France because of religious persecution (Huguenots).  I have ancestors that lived in Austria, Hungary and Germany during Hitler's rise and reign.  I have ancestors that lived through Peron's Dirty War.  America's experiment with liberty is near and dear to my heart because it is so novel.  I think a lot of Americans take it for granted and don't really understand how fragile it is.  Maybe some are waking up after Bush/Iraq, Obama/Snowden and now Trump.  Maybe not.  Doesn't matter with respect the main point.  The FF in their wisdom understood that if we were truly to be a free people, we would not only have to accept having an armed populace, we required it.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Then explain for this is enforceable....

Uh, easy. Just like now, if you're caught with a banned weapon, it gets confiscated and you probably get arrested. If you try to shoot or otherwise harm the officer(s) attempting to confiscate your weapon and/or arrest you, then your potential consequences increase dramatically. Seems pretty simple.

[TahoeHorn 107]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'd probably use a Vector.

https://www.academy.com/shop/pdp/kriss-vector-gen-ii-crb-10mm-auto-semiautomatic-rifle#repChildCatid=4865660

I had the pleasure of shooting one of these at the range a couple years ago when the Gen 2 models were first released. Always been a fan.

Why 10mm?  I'd go for something MUCH smaller.  You need something big if you need to drop somebody cold who is shooting at you, particularly if they may be behind a wall, a windshield, a car door or something.  If I'm popping kids at 15 feet who can't shoot back I'll guess a .22LR would be easy and accurate.  I know I'm waaaay more accurate with a .22 than a 10mm.

The point is: I think the ban of an "assault rifle" (whatever that is) is a ban of the weapon used by some nut.  It isn't a ban of the weapon that would be used by a Navy Seal trying to shoot up a school.  The nut will just find another weapon.  You aren't taking away killing power.  You're taking fire decals off a hot rod.

 

 

[Anastasis 23390]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

Which is why no rational person or court says that gun ownership for home protection is illegal. It can never be.   Your right to have full auto weapons and Stinger missiles in your house near an airport to fight off the potential thread of the Russian Airforce?  Not so much.

While the rhetoric unsurprisingly drifts to silly examples of stinger missile and russian invasion, the reality is that the single greatest threat to the civil liberties of the average American is our militarized domestic law enforcement personnel.  

[BabaYaga 15205]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Great point.  Or not.  Maybe this kid wouldn't have been stopped.  Maybe he just would have been slowed down and ONLY 14 KIDS WOULD HAVE LOST THEIR FUCKING LIVES.

Histrionics?  

OK, you get your way.  Let's ban outright every AR platform in the country.  Today.  Tens of millions.  Life in jail.  Tell me how you enforce this?  You don't even know where they are.  Door to door?  Rat on your friend and neighbors? 

How does this not immediately not go underground like drugs, etc....and a kid with enough planning to find a way to get smoke grenades, learn to fire on the move while wearing a gas mask, and develop a sophisticated strategy to escape be deterred?  This is absurd.  Kids can buy every manner of drugs at almost any HS in the country but they couldn't get a high cap mag or a rifle?  

But yeah, let's definitely not talk about creating more security at schools.  that makes way too much sense.  We only protect every other important building in this entire nation with security...but not our kids.  

[Brian Fantana 6667]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

Why 10mm?  I'd go for something MUCH smaller.  You need something big if you need to drop somebody cold who is shooting at you, particularly if they may be behind a wall, a windshield, a car door or something.  If I'm popping kids at 15 feet who can't shoot back I'll guess a .22LR would be easy and accurate.  I know I'm waaaay more accurate with a .22 than a 10mm.

The point is: I think the ban of an "assault rifle" (whatever that is) is a ban of the weapon used by some nut.  It isn't a ban of the weapon that would be used by a Navy Seal trying to shoot up a school.  The nut will just find another weapon.  You aren't taking away killing power.  You're taking fire decals off a hot rod.

 

 

Have you ever fired one? It's a real easy gun to shoot.

I'm not interested in addressing any more of your false equivalencies so quit trying.

[BabaYaga 15205]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Uh, easy. Just like now, if you're caught with a banned weapon, it gets confiscated and you probably get arrested. If you try to shoot or otherwise harm the officer(s) attempting to confiscate your weapon and/or arrest you, then your potential consequences increase dramatically. Seems pretty simple.

Ah, the see something say something strategy.  Compelling.  Works so well now.  Kids taking months to apparently plan out attacks certainly will be caught in this web as they stroll to the arcade with it strapped to their back.

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

While the rhetoric unsurprisingly drifts to silly examples of stinger missile and russian invasion, the reality is that the single greatest threat to the civil liberties of the average American is our militarized domestic law enforcement personnel.  

Off topic, but the single greatest threat to the civil liberties of the average American is the stupid, selfish voter.

[Gatorubet 30083]

Just now, Heavy 6 said:

 

The majority of nine people don’t determine our rights here, or in North Korea for that matter.

If believe that way, fine.

There was a boat load of Constitution waving assholes who thought that they had every right to enforce segregation and "state's rights".    How'd that work out for those guys.   And good luck with your society of 300 million individual interpretations on what the constitutional permissibly of the law means.    For many West Virginians it might mean it is OK to fuck their sisters in the ass and maybe or maybe not marry them, depending on how well that went.    I shudder to think about a state like Oklahoma left to itself, entirely unfettered by any law.   

But that's just me.

 

[jimmyjazz 45538]

OK, you get your way.  Let's ban outright every AR platform in the country.  Today.  Tens of millions.  Life in jail.  Tell me how you enforce this?  You don't even know where they are.  Door to door?  Rat on your friend and neighbors? 

We, we sure as hell should know where a lot of them are, because they should have been purchased legally.  We start with a buyback program.  Get your money back.  Then we go to an amnesty period.  At that point we've confiscated a good amount of these weapons, and no more are being manufactured, nor are the high capacity magazines or clips (LOL let's get into the difference between magazines and clips because that always advances the conversation).

And then we prosecute.  You didn't sell back or turn in your now-illegal weapon?  5-10 years in jail.  First offense.  More later.

I don't know why I'm typing this out, you have a hardon for guns.  You will not be swayed.  You might end up in jail, but you won't be swayed.  Fine by me.  At least you can't vote in jail.

Edited March 30, 2018 by jimmyjazz
I can't edit for quote on this bitch

[bernorange 8348]

32 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not really all that concerned with "utility" ..

...  I want to stop mass slaughter of innocent citizens.  ...

Regarding 1st snippet: I guess I didn't elaborate my earlier post well enough for you to follow the train of thought I was following. So...

Regarding 2nd snippet: Auto accidents are responsible for a much great mass slaughter of innocent citizens every year.  Why aren't you arguing for banning motor powered vehicles and return to horses and bicycles?  (this isn't a troll, but illustrative of the rabbit hole that one typically finds in the gun control "discussion" before you reach the "because cars have utility to society" argument - again implying that guns have no (or less) utility to society)

[TwiceHorn 31240]

3 minutes ago, bernorange said:

The superior characteristics of the AR-15 are the foundation of it's utility in self defense and it's check on tyranny.  History is replete with lessons in "might makes right" and the tyranny that results from an unarmed (or inadequately armed) populace.  In medieval times, a man's skill with a sword set a wide gulf between the haves and the have nots.  The evolution of weaponry has narrowed that gap.  The FN FAL was once characterized as the "right arm of the free world".  It leveled the playing field.  The AR-15 is superior the FN FAL.  Folks talk about nuclear weapons as a deterrent.  The greatest utility of modern firearms lies in the same dynamic IMO.

A lot of arguments I have seen in the gun control threads (both here and at the old site) are grounded in the same assumptions about stability in our society - politically (because we can vote) and economically (for the life of me, I don't understand this as 2007-2008 should have disillusioned anyone who was paying attention).  I don't concede those assumptions to be certain in perpetuity. 

My family history is a bit different from most.  I have ancestors that fled France because of religious persecution (Huguenots).  I have ancestors that lived in Austria, Hungary and Germany during Hitler's rise and reign.  I have ancestors that lived through Peron's Dirty War.  America's experiment with liberty is near and dear to my heart because it is so novel.  I think a lot of Americans take it for granted and don't really understand how fragile it is.  Maybe some are waking up after Bush/Iraq, Obama/Snowden and now Trump.  Maybe not.  Doesn't matter with respect the main point.  The FF in their wisdom understood that if we were truly to be a free people, we would not only have to accept having an armed populace, we required it.

Fair point.  I actually subscribe to this viewpoint at least as a matter of theory.  But good ol' Antonin has largely gutted it already.

[Gatorubet 30083]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

While the rhetoric unsurprisingly drifts to silly examples of stinger missile and russian invasion, the reality is that the single greatest threat to the civil liberties of the average American is our militarized domestic law enforcement personnel.  

That, and the fact that every keystroke of this conversation is likely being monitored by some government spook software somewhere, who can decide to make my vehicle stop operating with a kill switch via satellite when I try to flee rather than explain why I replied to a question about how much money I give Russian Intelligence with "Tree Fiddy".

 

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Gatorubet

[Anastasis 23390]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Off topic, but the single greatest threat to the civil liberties of the average American is the stupid, selfish voter.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Ah, the see something say something strategy.  Compelling.  Works so well now.  Kids taking months to apparently plan out attacks certainly will be caught in this web as they stroll to the arcade with it strapped to their back.

That's the only way to enforce a ban on anything you moron. No one is going to go door to door and search everyone's shit if a ban is put in place, and you damn well know it.

[Anastasis 23390]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

That, and the fact that every keystroke of this conversation is likely being monitored by some government spook software somewhere, who can decide to make my vehicle stop operating with a kill switch via satellite when I tree to flee rather than explain why I replied to a question about how much money I give Russian Intelligence with "Tree Fiddy".

 

 

repeat gif.

[BabaYaga 15205]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

We, we sure as hell should know where a lot of them are, because they should have been purchased legally.  We start with a buyback program.  Get your money back.  Then we go to an amnesty period.  At that point we've confiscated a good amount of these weapons, and no more are being manufactured, nor are the high capacity magazines or clips (LOL let's get into the difference between magazines and clips because that always advances the conversation).

And then we prosecute.  You didn't sell back or turn in your now-illegal weapon?  5-10 years in jail.  First offense.  More later.

I don't know why I'm typing this out, you have a hardon for guns.  You will not be swayed.  You might end up in jail, but you won't be swayed.  Fine by me.  At least you can't vote in jail.

A buyback program?  Is that a joke?  Who on gods green earth is going to participate in that?  And you aren't confiscating crap because you don't know who has them, or where they are.  Mine fell in the river.  Sorry.  Too bad for me....and if you try, how does that not lead to bloodshed?  In the name of "protecting" lives, you are advocating for a course of action that will lead to inevitable casualties.    Ban/regulate/ban/regulate.  Rinse.  Wash.  repeat.  No other options.  None.  Just ban & regulate.  But yeah, I'm being myopic.

[BabaYaga 15205]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

That's the only way to enforce a ban on anything you moron. No one is going to go door to door and search everyone's shit if a ban is put in place, and you damn well know it.

That's the point.  It won't work.  At all.  So now what?

[Heavy 6 68]

There was a boat load of Constitution waving assholes who thought that they had every right to enforce segregation and "state's rights".    How'd that work out for those guys.   And good luck with your society of 300 million individual interpretations on what the constitutional permissibly of the law means.    For many West Virginians it might mean it is OK to fuck their sisters in the ass and maybe or maybe not marry them, depending on how well that went.    I shudder to think about a state like Oklahoma left to itself, entirely unfettered by any law.   
But that's just me.
 

Good job on bringing up Jim Crow and sister fucking to the debate. Didn’t see those in the BOR.

My point is either you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable INDIVIDUAL right, or if it is something to be abridged by a politician and interpreted by bureaucrats.

I don’t know how you would feel about the other amendments with the same restrictions by a benevolent oversight. Perhaps you think like minded individuals will be in charge.

[TahoeHorn 107]

There is a gun control thread.  I was hoping that this thread could be to figure out what an assault weapon is.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

4 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Regarding 1st snippet: I guess I didn't elaborate my earlier post well enough for you to follow the train of thought I was following. So...

Regarding 2nd snippet: Auto accidents are responsible for a much great mass slaughter of innocent citizens every year.  Why aren't you arguing for banning motor powered vehicles and return to horses and bicycles?  (this isn't a troll, but illustrative of the rabbit hole that one typically finds in the gun control "discussion" before you reach the "because cars have utility to society" argument - again implying that guns have no (or less) utility to society)

You might have a point if we allowed unfettered vehicle operation on our roads, but we don't.  We administer driving tests.  We require insurance.  We require registration.  We take people's license away for various offenses.

But more importantly, transportation is almost EXCLUSIVELY a "utility".  Very few people would drive around for the hell of it.  They need to get somewhere.  Commerce depends on it.

At to that end, we know the following statistics:  there are approximately 250 million cars in service in the United States today.  Almost one car per citizen.  How many "assault" weapons are currently in circulation?  (Don't fucking get into it with me on the definition.)  Somewhere between 8.5M-15M, according to the NRA.  Call it 1 for every 30 people.

So there's your utility.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That's the point.  It won't work.  At all.  So now what?

It worked in Australia.  It worked magnificently.  (Cue the "but Australia is DIFFFFFFFERENT!" bullshit even though they're likely the single most similar country to the US on the fucking planet).

Do you think nobody has heard these arguments before?

[bernorange 8348]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

...

So there's your utility.

You may not realize it, but you actually just validated my point.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

6 minutes ago, Heavy 6 said:

 

Good job on bringing up Jim Crow and sister fucking to the debate. Didn’t see those in the BOR.

My point is either you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable INDIVIDUAL right, or if it is something to be abridged by a politician and interpreted by bureaucrats.

I don’t know how you would feel about the other amendments with the same restrictions by a benevolent oversight. Perhaps you think like minded individuals will be in charge.
 

 

"Inalienable" doesn't mean what you think it means.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

There is a gun control thread.  I was hoping that this thread could be to figure out what an assault weapon is.

Bullshit.  You're a fucking troll who is "just asking questions".

[jimmyjazz 45538]

Just now, bernorange said:

You may not realize it, but you actually just validated my point.

Enlighten me.

[BabaYaga 15205]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You might have a point if we allowed unfettered vehicle operation on our roads, but we don't.  We administer driving tests.  We require insurance.  We require registration.  We take people's license away for various offenses.

But more importantly, transportation is almost EXCLUSIVELY a "utility".  Very few people would drive around for the hell of it.  They need to get somewhere.  Commerce depends on it.

At to that end, we know the following statistics:  there are approximately 250 million cars in service in the United States today.  Almost one car per citizen.  How many "assault" weapons are currently in circulation?  (Don't fucking get into it with me on the definition.)  Somewhere between 8.5M-15M, according to the NRA.  Call it 1 for every 30 people.

So there's your utility.

We thousands upon thousands of pages of existing gun laws in place.  You just want more in the hopes it will help despite overwhelming evidence that gun related crimes are dropping steadily.  You want to ban an entire market in the hopes these little maniacs don't change their MO and switch to pistols, shotguns, or bolt guns (Norway)

[BabaYaga 15205]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It worked in Australia.  It worked magnificently.  (Cue the "but Australia is DIFFFFFFFERENT!" bullshit even though they're likely the single most similar country to the US on the fucking planet).

Do you think nobody has heard these arguments before?

Actually, it didn't.  Not at all.  Less than a 6th of the guns were turned in.  There was no constitutional precedent, they have a total population less than LA, and they are a FUCKING island.  Pretty easy to secure your borders while you are hundreds of miles out in the ocean.

[Heavy 6 68]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

"Inalienable" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Ok I gotta hear this.

[bernorange 8348]

@jimmyjazz- I really can't explain it any clearer.  I think maybe you are little too wound up right now to grok my point.  I know you are a smart dude.  Maybe try re-reading my posts again later?

[jimmyjazz 45538]

LOL, why not try to minimize me a little more?  Maybe tell me to put on my apron and pearls?
 

Fuck you.  My point is clearly thought out and supportable.  I'm so fucking sorry that you actually have to deal with people on the other side of the debate who possess intellect AND conviction.  Am I wound tight?  Maybe.  Maybe this just matters to me.  Fuck your "uptight".  You know my MO, I'm as transparent as I've always been.  I'm not running for fucking office.  I have maybe 2 decades left on this planet and I am gunning for change.  There are a whole lot of us.

[Gatorubet 30083]

Just now, Heavy 6 said:

 

Good job on bringing up Jim Crow and sister fucking to the debate. Didn’t see those in the BOR.

My point is either you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable INDIVIDUAL right, or if it is something to be abridged by a politician and interpreted by bureaucrats.

I don’t know how you would feel about the other amendments with the same restrictions by a benevolent oversight. Perhaps you think like minded individuals will be in charge.
 

What you fail to grasp is the same thing they did. That your "rights" are a sort of phraseology misnomer.    The "Rights" arising from the Constitution should be seen for what they are: a list of things that the government cannot do to you, cannot pass certain laws about those things, subject to some rational limitations as interpreted by the courts.  

You have a right to Free Speech.  But you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.  Or be free from lawsuits or public derision or losing your job over saying something stupid.  Nobody has a right to say what they want to say and be safe in a bubble of First Amendment.  You can't insist on an individual Right to Freedom of Religion as you see fit.  Now, while government can't say 'you have to go to church', or 'you cannot go to church', they can still ban anyone who insists on marrying and having sex with under-aged kids.  Government can do this, no matter what your God or Prophet whispers in your ear, and no matter how much you sincerely believe it.  

You have no right to shit, as it relates to what you think the individual amendments mean.  At least since Marbury v Madison.   You have a Constitution that limits which laws the Government can pass regarding certain things.    Certain things they cannot do.  Other they can.   SCOTUS decides.   Otherwise, you'd just decide that taxes are unconstitutional, laws limiting sister fucking are unconstitutional, any prohibition on guns of any type are unconstitutional, federal courts interfering with segregation is unconstitutional, etc.   Your example is no different than the others.  YOU want to decide what it all means.   Good luck with that. 

[Brian Fantana 6667]

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

That's the point.  It won't work.  At all.  So now what?

You're a fucking moron.

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Actually, it didn't.  Not at all.  Less than a 6th of the guns were turned in.  There was no constitutional precedent, they have a total population less than LA, and they are a FUCKING island.  Pretty easy to secure your borders while you are hundreds of miles out in the ocean.

You're a fucking moron.

• “While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”
• “In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”
• “In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”
• “[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”

I bolded the important one for you. Weird that they haven't had a single mass shooting since they enacted the NFA. Weird.