I don’t disagree with the contention that American gun control advocates go about it in the wrong way, just SenorBeef’s apparent suggestion that they’re all crass agenda whores with no interest in helping anyone.
Indeed. Gun control is necessary but we have the left proposing irrational measures and the right screeching in horror about any suggestion of increased gun controls at all, lobbying to repeal existing controls all the while. Reasonable people are stuck between those who want to repeal the Second Amendment and those who would love to see every possible munition freely available.
Absolutely! Which is why I’m confused whenever someone acts like banning assault rifles is akin to wiping your ass with The Constitution.
Not really. The reality is it is so rare no formal statistics are kept. It’s like keeping statistics on people who have pitched perfect games on baseball. It’s easier to just list out all the incidents.
To the best of anyone’s knowledge only two people have ever been killed post-1934 with legally owned automatic weapons.
No one knows how many have been killed with illegally owned automatic weapons as again, there are not true national statistics available. But compiling local sources would indicate very few. The director of the ATF a few years ago stated he knew of under 10 such cases in history.
Last time I’m addressing this quote: I’m pretty damn certain a lot of gun control advocates do what they do because they believe it is right. They may be wrong. They may be crazy. But the assertion that they’re all disegenuously pursuing an agending is prejudicial nonsense. The legistlation didn’t work, you say? Must we pretend that people don’t sincerely pursue foolish courses of action?
Someone already alluded to this (it may have been you) but isn’t this the best argument in the world for making it just as hard to own any gun as it is to own a machine gun?
Not the way the law works. The SCOTUS makes distinctions that aren’t linguistic. Linguistically any speech is speech, even incitement to riot and murder. But the SCOTUS has long distinguished between “protected speech” and speech that is not protected. Likewise, arms have been left up to Congress to decide where the line is drawn, mostly. But in fact I believe some of the 18th century gun regulations actually barred cannon ownership early on, so even the Founders didn’t think the second amendment allowed cannon ownership.
Many people don’t realize however that prior to the 20th century by and large cases involving the Bill of Rights weren’t that common in the SCOTUS. Up until some post-Civil War amendments and SCOTUS rulings the Bill of Rights didn’t even apply to the States. Further, even for many years after that the amount of Federal legislation that even touched on such issues was extremely rare. Most gun control, free speech and etc issues were matters of State law.
I was a gun dealer in the 80’s when the registry was closed. Before the registry was closed, the difference in price between a semi-auto and a full auto was not as dramatic as today. The wholesaler circulars I received back then would typically show an AR-15 at a dealer price of around $400. An M-16 ran around $1500 plus the BATF taxes. All told, figure about 4.5x as much as the AR. Today, the AR is maybe $700 and the M-16 is $15k (for starters). You know what though? Not many M-16’s were sold back then. Demand just wasn’t there. What jumpstarted demand for full auto was closing the registry. People with hazy “maybe someday” ideas of owning a machine gun decided they’d better hurry up and buy.
Heh, nonsense. Martin Hyde’s explanation is far better and more in line with the gist of what I’m saying.
The gist of what I’m saying:
The legality of a particular weapon is changeable and aribtrarily chosen by the legistlature in accordance with the changing whims of the nation. The Second Amendment gives you “arms” and Congress tells you which ones you can have. There’s nothing magical about assault rifles such that you’re entitled to one. They’re just legal today. Maybe forever. Maybe not.
I’m not aware of any federal papers or the like that define it differently than I’ve stated. Your attempt at including tanks in the definition of arms is without merit and frankly childish.
What problems were they trying to solve? The 52 year perfect record of NFA-registered gun owners? Or did they see Miami Vice and figure real criminals were battling the police with these weapons?
Do you doubt my claim that no crimes were committed with these guns in this period? If not, are you saying despite the 52 year perfect record, with hundreds of thousands of owners, and tens millions of man-years of ownership of these weapons, they were on the verge of becoming a big problem?
You are demonstrating my point exactly. Despite being provided with the data showing that there was no problem to solve, you’re still justifying a completely senseless law.
No, it’s not, and you’d know that if you were paying attention. Making it as hard as it is to own a machine gun achieved nothing, because the 1986 law was addressing a problem that did not exist.
Gee… how about a railgun? Can I have one of those? The projectiles are solid so it should be fine.
I’m sorry you find my argument beneath you. Personally, I love the irony of a gun advocate named Magiver. I mean, I know the guy in the show was “MacGyver”, but I can’t help thinking of a soft-spoken pacifist who hated guns every time I see your handle.
Many old-fashioned solid-shot cannon still exist. In fact, they aren’t that hard to obtain. They tend to fall into the “black powder” exemption for replica firearms. It’s very easy to buy antiques, replicas, and kits of cap-and-ball small arms, and, again, not really all that difficult to buy smooth-bore cannons, especially small ones.
Your definition has an historical hole in it. (Cannon also shoot “cannister,” which is neither solid shot nor explosive shell.)
No, I’m not. As I’ve said multiple times now, the law may very well have been foolishly misguided. I thought it was clear when I posted, but I will clarify again that I was objecting to your contention that…
… because it’s a gross generalization and one you can’t possibly defend. Prove that no gun control advocate anywhere is interested in solving problems related to gun control or just drop it. Sheesh.
Au contraire, good sir. You see, I was paying attention when this post from this very thread seemed to establish that, following the National Firearms Act of 1934, the difficulties imposed on ownership of automatic weapons created a 52 year period wherein no such weapon was used in a crime. Would that we could say that about all guns…