Gun owners do see mass shootings as a problem. We do however deeply resent legislation that could turn 100 million people into criminals with the stroke of a pen.
I dont think anyone here truly endorses zero regulation or a reduction in any meaningful way. I live in CA, I already have the biggest PITA gun laws, I am OK with them. Even if the rest of the country flipped a switch to CA gun laws tomorrow, the vast majority of these high profile shooters would have sailed right through due to the lack of previous criminal convictions.
These are excellent points, and I will concede that the vast majority of gun owners are not ready to snap and take out a day care playground full of toddlers.
But something’s gotta change. My suggestions have met some (not completely unanticipated) derision. I’m not seeing any suggestions from across the aisle, though. There’s a certain class of military-grade weapon that just doesn’t belong in civilian hands, certainly not to the extent that it is, and an eye-rolling reference to the Second Amendment really doesn’t address the problem.
[ul]
[li]Are your First Amendment rights not satisfied with revolvers and the kind of long guns primarily associated with hunting?[/li][li]If you own assault rifles, who exactly are you arming yourself against? Cartels? A negro revolt? Jack-booted thugs from the ATF? Are these rifles a realistic response to any of these possibilities?[/li][li]Theoretically, does the 2nd Amendment entitle you to own fragmentary grenades or Stinger missiles?[/li][li]Are spiraling instances of mass shootings an acceptable trade-off for being able to party like Ted Nugent?[/li][li]Is it possible for civilians to responsibly own weapons that have no civilian applications?[/li][li]Is the rest of the civilized world missing out on something important by not having these problems?[/li]
[/ul]
Good Christ, you cannot have honestly expected anybody to go to a well that thoroughly poisoned and loaded with your assertions presented as established fact.
I believe we agree that private individuals shouldn’t have SAM’s or flame throwers. Is that correct?
You’re a lawyer and I’m sure don’t need my help to find “infringements” that are accepted. Most obvious is you can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater Either you accept that there are infringements on the 2nd or I should be able to build or buy advanced weaponry capable of shooting down airliners, no?
What would you prefer? firearm, guns or something else? It doesn’t matter to me beyond trying to avoid obviously inflammatory wording.
The second point is that no matter what is proposed as how to secure your firearm in your home, no one will be satisfied with the proposal, plenty of folks will poke holes in it and it will be unenforceable. I think I have a pretty common sense approach. You secure your firearm in whatever manner you deem safe for your environment. And if it turns out not to be safe, well mandatory insurance will at least provide some monetary compensation, and the possibility of jail depending on the circumstances will likely increase the approach to safety. Again, not telling you how to do keep your firearms safe in your possession, but if it turns out they are not safe, well then there is responsibility instead of only good intentions.
Alternatively, perhaps you can suggest a better way to secure personal firearms? I’m all ears.
[li]Are your First Amendment rights not satisfied with revolvers and the kind of long guns primarily associated with hunting?[/li]
-Nope. The Second Amendment has no connection to hunting, period.
[li]If you own assault rifles, who exactly are you arming yourself against? Cartels? A negro revolt? Jack-booted thugs from the ATF? Are these rifles a realistic response to any of these possibilities?[/li]
-I compete in various tournaments called three gun matches. They require a center fire semi auto rifle. You’d call it an assault rifle because you are clueless. I also use mine to hunt.
[li]Theoretically, does the 2nd Amendment entitle you to own fragmentary grenades or Stinger missiles?[/li]
-Grenades and i assume the warheads on missiles are defined as destructive devices. These have their own set of rules and regs and path to ownership, separate from firearms.
[li]Are spiraling instances of mass shootings an acceptable trade-off for being able to party like Ted Nugent?[/li]
Whatever… I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
[li]Is it possible for civilians to responsibly own weapons that have no civilian applications?[/li]
Please enlighten us on which weapons you feel have no civilian applications. I can tell you that there are an estimated 5 million ar15 rifles owned by civilians in the US. According to the FBI 3-400 homicides annually are completed using ANY rifle not just the ones you have a boner for. If those rifles were not being owned responsibly, you’d see some drastically different numbers. Considering the millions of other non AR type rifles that you would likely consider “assault weapons” that are not being used to cause mayhem, yeah, it’s possible.
Mass shootings and most other firearms homicides are performed overwhelmingly with handguns. You should consider barking up a different tree if you are truly interested limiting gun violence.
[li]Is the rest of the civilized world missing out on something important by not having these problems?[/li]
They simply have different problems.
Accidents like little kid accidently killing his little sister. Kid taking a pistol to school, dropping the backpack and the accidental discharge wounds or kills another. After a 10 second search, here’s a summary list of some accidents: accidental shooting
I’ll also spell out chain of ownership. Buying a firearm off some guy on the internet is a common example.
Not sure how many times I have to repeat in this thread. I am not trying to tell anyone how to safely secure your firearm. What I am saying is that the owner needs to have insurance (just like a car), and there should be enforced laws in case the owners firearm was not in fact safely secured.
What makes a “military-grade weapon” unsuitable for civilian ownership? Our nation started out with the premise that the military should NOT be a special class above the “subjects”. Private citizens could and did own cannon and large stocks of gunpowder, the most destructive devices then available. Until 1934 you could wire the money to Browning and have them ship you a .30 caliber water-cooled machine gun, no questions asked. Even after the 1934 National Firearms Act, you could still own machine guns, you just had to go through an expensive and intrusive degree of government oversight. Technically you still can, it’s just that the government now refuses to accept new registrations. You used to be able to buy dynamite at hardware stores. Different state and local jurisdictions have varied over the years in regulating/ restricting/ banning various types of weapons and destructive devices, but the very distinction of a weapon being “military only” is comparatively recent.
As to your bullet points:
[ul]
[li]I presume you mean Second Amendment rights; and no, they are not satisfied with second-rate weapons the government graciously allows us to keep.[/li][li]Realistically? There’s the rare but non-zero chance of civil disorder, in which I might have to convince a mob of rioters/looters that attacking me is a bad idea. As for deterring tyranny, I’ll start by not accepting that the civil population should be forbidden to own the same weapons soldiers are armed with.[/li][li]In principle, yes. I could accept that the government could make special requirements of me if I was determined to own a Stinger.[/li][li]I’ll presume that one’s snark[/li][li]As for "no civilian applications, see answer #2. Or maybe I just like to go out in the desert and blow stuff up for fun.[/li][li]Granted that people in modern representative democracies enjoy remarkable freedom today. A few of these now pleasant countries were as recently as the 1960s subject to occasional military governments. I’ll say that neither allowing nor banning guns in itself seems to make the difference. What does seem to make the difference is to what degree their armies and police see themselves as a special class; certainly banning citizens from owning “military only” weapons doesn’t help.[/li][/ul]
Rather than me throw out ideas out of ignorance, help out a non firearm owner with something waaaaaaaay over the top yet is legal to purchase? It will make for a better debate instead of gotcha’ing myself. :eek:
It will be clear who is a licensed firearm owner and who isn’t. It would likely reduce the number of straw buyers, since they would be liable until they transfer ownership.
It’s a rifle, intended by its manufacturer for military use, with the option of semi- (one bullet per pull of the trigger) and full-automatic (Bullets heep firing rapidly for as long as the trigger is squeezed until the magazine is empty; the full-auto is disabled at point of legal sale to civilians, but kits can remedy that), with a large-capacity magazine of up to 50 rounds. As opposed to a machine gun, which is exclusively full-auto and has loads of over 50 rounds. They tend to have a folding or telescoping stock.
Attacking my terminology is a bullshit argument and you know better. Using it repeatedly makes it no truer.
It’s not a bullshit argument – it’s a bullshit definition.
Or maybe it’s not, depending on what you think “disabled at point blank of legal sale to civilians,” actually means. Can you give me an example of an assault rifle that is sold to civilians in this way?