You see the part where you talk about shooting first graders? A lot of people took offense at the gun control folks basically blaming gun owners for Sandy Hook.
From the Wiki on “assault weapons” then:
How about a compromise on gay sex? You are allowed to have it in your own home with the doors locked, but no kissing in public or marriage.
What? I am trying to be reasonable here, and you are just being absolutist about it!
I am joking, but that is what each of these “reasonable compromise” gun control measures are about. They are not reasonable and they are only a compromise in the sense that it is better than an absolute ban, which your side consistently states it does not support (so why do we begin the negotiation on that point?).
Anyways, under your proposal, I can own an AR-15 and keep it at home but only use it on the range? Or can I only keep and store it at the range? I live in a rural area where there are no rifle ranges. Our ranges consist of going to a buddy’s field and putting up targets at a distance. Will that count as a “range” under the new law? Does he need some sort of permit to call his field a “range”? What permit does he need? May he then buy AR-15s?
What if it turns out that my buddy/other certified range owner is deranged and shoots up a school or nightclub? Will we then close the “range loophole”?
IOW, even if I agreed in principle with your limitations (which I don’t) what assurances do I have that this is not simply an incremental step to banning all AR-15s?
So I can own and carry an AR-15 but I can only use it on a range?
What if I set up a range on my own 500 acre property?
What if I own a ranch and want to protect myself and my herd from wolves?
What if I prefer hunting with the ergonomic features that come with an AR-15?
Yup. Last time I debated about this specific thing, I focused mainly on the “useless” features that would make such a weapon a good tool for mass killing and an overkill one for defense. Rapid firing capabilities and large magazines are two things I’d like to see private citizens banned from owning, because you don’t fucking use those things except for killing a lot of things really quickly. Unless ninjas are attacking you, you can use a regular gun
Other extraneous stuff like bayonet attachments or barrel-coolers I’m less strict on, but people tend to nitpick to try and worm some things past loopholes, so my answer would be an unsatisfying “it depends”
How about this instead:
What is "rapid firing capability
A semi-automatic pistol is no faster than a revolver.
What is a large magazine? Where is the dividing line between large and medium?
Don’t get me wrong. I can be convinced to accept a limit on magazine size but you would have to make an argument that displays more knowledge about guns than invoking ninjas.
Can we apply the same sort of “it depends” criteria to abortions? Free speech? Search and seizure?
Can we talk about one topic at a time?
What upper limit for magazine size wouldn’t you argue much with?
That would, at least for me, depend entirely on what type of firearm we’re talking about and what purpose it is being owned/used for. Which is one of the reasons that such a regulation is rather stupid – any number you come up with is likely to be purely arbitrary and without any real merit.
Didn’t bother to read all the way through the last sentence Did you?
No, it probably wouldn’t wouldn’t work any better. So clearly, the only possible alternative is to continue the ignorant and dishonest arguments that have failed for decades.
Anything where if you hold down the trigger, the gun fires automatically for you. Should be one pull, one shot, no exceptions.
Anything over 10 is large.
Ninjas are funny, and they are used due to the stereotypical mass attack of a bunch of them typical in older martial arts movies. Pretending that I was serious when referring to ninajs just makes you pedantic. Take the argument’s purpose at face value and don’t think too much about actual Japanese martial artists.
My question to you is, if you can be convinced to accept a limit, why haven’t you done so already? What purpose does it serve for you to wait around for someone to tell you a good reason when you’re perfectly capable of reasoning out a limit. To me, that’s the kind of argument someone makes when they know they won’t be convinced: it makes them sound open-minded when they really aren’t. If I fail to convince it, it will be “my fault”, not because you’re close-minded
Sure, make your own topic and maybe I’ll go there
Well then, right there you go. None of the shootings that I can think of as far back as I remember were accomplished with fully automatic weapons. The AR-15 and the other assault rifles associated with mass shootings are all one trigger pull, one shot.
And that right there is why I am concerned about all the talk about banning assault rifles. It’s like the TSA telling us to put our shampoo in a ziplock baggie. Looks like they’re doing something while accomplishing nothing. The things that make an assault rifle canonically an assault rifle make it no more or less deadly than any other kind of gun. They just look ‘mean’ in the eyes of the public.
Please be sure to include the rest of the criteria I put in my post instead of trying for, and hilariously failing, the easy “gotcha”. Thanks.
This proposal is colossally bad.
The 2nd amendment’s core protection isn’t about duck hunting, or any hunting for that matter. I can’t tell what you mean by “open market” and your post #3 is not informative at all. But you asked for specifics:
[ol]
[li]No new open-market weapon sales[/li]Unconstitutional. The right to purchase firearms is coextensive with the right to own firearms.
[li]No more open-market ammo/ammunition-loading sales[/li]Unconstitutional. The right to purchase ammunition is coextensive with the right to own firearms.
[li]Hunting & support weapons available to buyers only with a current hunting license[/li]The 2nd amendment’s core protection isn’t about hunting.
[li]10(?) rounds of ammo per animal tag, rationed purchase[/li]The 2nd amendment’s core protection isn’t about hunting.
[li]On-site use only, unlimited ammunition purchases at ranges[/li]The 2nd amendment’s core protection covers self defense at home. On site use only is unconstitutional.
[li]Any ammunition/loading purchase must match a weapon registered to the buyer[/li]Loading supplies are not weapon or caliber specific.
[li]Mandatory weapon registration, but at no/nominal cost. Or maybe substantial, with a grandfather clause eliminating the fee for all weapons registered within 12 months of legislation.[/li]Probably not unconstitutional - but politically not possible at this time.
[li]Ongoing voluntary buyback program[/li]FFLs will set up shop right outside of the buybacks picking the best guns and offering slightly more than the buyback price. Arbitrage.
[/ol]
Remember when you expressed surprise that bullets could ricochet off of water? At that time I mentioned to you that you should keep in mind this fundamental ignorance before making statements about firearms. Well, here is another example. Full auto weapons like you describe are incredibly rare. AR-15 rifles and all semi auto rifles and all semi auto pistols are one pull, one shot.
No. Most firearms will come with a magazine when you purchase new. The magazine included is the standard for the type of firearm that is purchased. For some firearms, an 8 round magazine may be standard. For some, a 30 round magazine may be standard. Saying anything over 10 is large is an insult to the English language.
It’s an epidemic! There have been about two murders committed in the entire country with legal FA weapons. Since 1934.
He quoted the entire part of your post germane to your definition of “rapid fire,” and addressed only that part of your post. As stated these weapons are highly regulated and very expensive if you can actually buy one.
I’m not trying to argue every single one of your criteria. I’m pointing out that you are wrong about the types of guns used in these attacks and wrong about what constitutes an assault rifle as available to the general public today. No more and no less.
Automatic weapons, ones that “where if you hold down the trigger, the gun fires automatically for you” are not available to the public except in a vanishingly small set of circumstances.
I’m all for more rigorous gun control. But arguing for a ban on a feature that doesn’t exist is not a good starting point.
There are many of us who already own dozens of “assault weapons” and have over 30K rounds of .223 and/or 7.62 in the basement. So what’s your plan for us? :dubious:
Whatever limits they are willing to put on police and the common foot soldier.
If police or military feel they need 30 rounds in their AR-15s and 17 rounds in their handguns when they run into bad guys why do I need less just because I am less likely to run into those bad guys?
I take this attitude with most things related to the regulation of guns. If the police and common foot soldier can’t have it then I can see not letting me have it either.
Heck I would be OK with smart gun requirements as soon as they implement them in the military and police forces across the country. But, if its not reliable enough for our police why should I consider it reliable enough for me?
Public ridicule?