Is there where I get lumped into the “gun nut extremists” because I believe in the principle of the 2nd Amendment and accept that acts of callous violence are the cost of living in a free society?
Not at all brother this is the nest;)
No, this is not the place. Down the hall, second door on the right, cab to the airport, international departures, catch a plane to… well, pretty much anywhere really.
It may the cost of living in an American society - and if you’re okay with paying it, be my guest - but your country has no exclusive claims to freedom.
But we have Freedom Fries. It’s in the name.
So the solution to gun crime is to ban the least practical weapons that are used in the smallest portion of gun crimes? Okay. Sure. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by handguns, for obvious reasons. So if they are serious about reducing gun crime, they should be banning handguns.
We already did this exact same thing in the 90’s… The number of assault weapon clones in circulation increased, prices initially spiked but then returned to pre-ban levels, and homicides somehow dropped anyway. The 90’s assault weapon ban had zero effect, and the anti-gun activists know this, so I cannot arrive at any conclusion other than to think this is a deliberate act of malice.
You can’t? That strikes me as a failure of imagination. Personally, I think a lot of people have their opinions informed by Hollywood, which routinely depicts fully-automatic weapons as both commonplace and accurate - at least when wielded either by good guys killing henchmen or bad guys killing innocent victims.
Also, that if you’re serious about reducing violence, forget about guns and just legalize drugs.
The anti-gun crowd has access to the same DOJ statistics I use. I’m sure that most of the casual “followers” are acting out of fear and perception, but the leaders of these organizations (the people who actually write laws) are proposing laws that they already know will be ineffective.
I cannot conceive of what would drive a person to propose a law they know will be ineffectual. The logical conclusion is that they know the assault weapon ban will fail (the same way it failed in the 90’s), and that they will use this failure to argue that the AWB didn’t go far enough, and propose more stringent gun laws.
Attacking handgun ownership would be the most effective step they can take. But they’re not. Why do think that is so?
Because they’re misinformed and think Hollywood reality is real reality. I admit finding it odd, myself. I could imagine a handgun ban of some sort coupled with a loosening of restrictions on long guns, if the argument that defense of one’s home (and state) was something that must be considered.
Though I’d rather just legalize drugs and save myself the hassle.
First of all, as others said, regardless of whether one thinks this is a good idea or not, this will NOT pass with this congress. And, frankly, it’s just this type of legislation that, justly or not, adds to the hysteria that the left wants to confiscate your guns.
What is this “other purpose”? This sort of vague language will certainly get anyone that’s pro-gun worried. And that’s not to mention that it explicitly states that it intends to limit the right to keep and bear arms. How does that NOT fly directly in the face of the second amendment?
Just this right here, between banning any semi-automatic weapon with a pistol grip, how does that not outright ban a huge swath of handguns? That covers pretty much any handgun that isn’t a revolver.
These things sound scary, but I’m not really sure how they make a gun more dangerous. How is a folding or detachable stock any more threatening than a standard one? Or, “Oh no, I might burn myself on the barrel while I’m mowing down unarmed victims if I can’t get a barrel shroud!”
Also, why threaded barrels? Presumably that’s intended to essentially ban supressors, and I imagine the fear of those is that people have seen too many spy movies thinking they make bullets whisper quiet. Yeah… no.
How is large capacity decided on here? Frankly, 10 rounds is on par or fewer than what a typical handgun might hold. Again, this seems aimed to pretty much ban any handgun that isn’t a revolver.
As has been pointed out about the no fly list, I have major issue with any list the government keeps that curtails any right. The problem is, we’re constitutionally guaranteed that we’re owed due process. It might sound like a good idea for guns, but what about other rights? What if they decide that the no fly list also allows them to curtail one’s right to free speech, wiretaps, perform searches without a warrant, or detain indefinitely? There’s a lot of criticism about EXACTLY that behavior related to the USA PATRIOT Act and GITMO, just related to other rights. I think it’s hypocritical to be in favor of it when it curtails rights we’re not fond of but not when it’s ones we do.
And that’s not to say I think a watch list or whatever is inherently a bad idea, but it should be established by law and guarantee due process. If the government wants to create a list of suspected terrorist sympathizers or potential public violence threats or whatever, fine. But when they do that, they should establish distinct guidelines for what does and does not make one a threat, exactly what rights that curtails, what extra methods of monitoring or enforcement it grants the government, and, perhaps most importantly, the burden of proof should lie with the government and the person added to the list must have a legal right to be notified and provided with reasonable opportunity to get council, gather evidence and witnesses, and appeal the decision. Isn’t that the whole point of due process? If a right can be removed without due process, can it really be said to even be a right?
It’s kind of hard to mention a bill like this and not spark a debate. But I’m not really sure what the point is here. Again, I think my chances of getting struck by lightning today are meaningfully more significant than this bill passing under this congress.
And, more seriously, I think this sort of bill does a real disservice to people who want to see actual measures done to address violence. A bill like this that I think any reasonable person knows won’t pass just serves to create greater polarity over the issue. So instead of actually talking about realistic measures that might actually pass, the debate essentially becomes “OMG Guns are BAD!” vs “TROLOL They’re taking our guns!” And all that does is play to the extremist base on both sides of the issue and leaves the majority confused and feeling disenfranchised.
It’s a bill for show, just like the endless Republican bills to repeal Obamacare.
Nor do they actually exist in any meaningful sense, as established by the current thread on the topic.
Totally, agree. I don’t know if those that want some kind of limitations on firearms are just plain ignorant and/or if Wayne LaPierre has a secret marketing machine that leads them down rat holes? Sheesh, go after something that might actually make a difference instead of spinning legislative cycles and goodwill trying to ban say a cosmetic rifle modification to look *similar *to a real military grade full automatic assault rifle.
This is the result of people who feel very passionately about something they know very little about.
An assault weapons ban is about the stupidest idea the gun control side has come up with and the Democrats really need to stop turning this into a partisan issue, they will lose votes over this without getting anywhere on the policy front.
Every gun not sold is a victory. Having an assault weapon ban is better than not having one. Obviously it is not as good as a handgun weapon ban, but that is not going to be politically feasible in the near future. You guys act like it’s an either/or thing, it is not. It’s a “we will take anything we can get to stop the problem from becoming worse” thing, and the problem is “too many guns”.
But why is it better? There is nothing about most (all?) of the “assault weapon” features that makes them more dangerous.
Hey, remind me again: which front-running presidential candidate is advocating a religious test for immigrants?
It doesn’t matter how much more or less dangerous they are, they are still dangerous and not selling them is a benefit to society. You are absolutely right that other types of guns are more dangerous, if we could ban those that would be great.
Because his goal is to ban all guns, which is consistent with the idea that “every gun not sold is a victory”?
It makes the gun banner side look like idiots to push through such a ridiculous proposal, especially in light of the fact that it has next to zero chance of getting through. But then, it’s not really for that, is it? It’s really to make the faithful feel like Something Is Being Done™ and that it’s the Evil Republicans(arr) who are standing in the way of progress!! 
It’s loopy horseshit like this that keeps me an independent.
More of a fantasy than an actual goal really, but yeah that’s the basic idea. Gotta start somewhere, right?