It’s going to be interesting when law abiding gunowners switch to open carrying long guns, which is legal in many states. I wonder what type would be the most common?
There it is again. If weapons can be restricted? When did we agree to that? I refuse to begin the discussion with nukes because there are none in private hands. There never have been any in private hands, The majority of nations do not even possess them. You start with this absurdity and then want to segue into “well, since we agree that you shouldn’t be allowed to own a nuke, then that sets the precedent for you not being allowed to own a handgun because a weapon is a weapon.” No. I refuse to take part in another debate featuring that greasy, disingenuous argument.
Y’know, it might actually lead to less crime if a person’s personal defense was out for all to see.
So you’re okay with debate as long as your position isn’t made to look silly?
I would think that open carry isn’t the problem, concealment is.
I agree. If this situation should come to pass, though, would you not expect a reaction from the gun manufacturers siimilar to what the did with pistols during the Assault Weapons ban? Pistols got smaller and lighter while still using full-powered ammo. I would expect long guns to be improved in similar ways to make them more convenient to carry on a daily basis.
Probably true. If handguns were banned via fiat, then I’d assume that there would be requirements for minimum length and operation, but within those limits they would be made as ergonomic as possible.
I agree with you, in principle. However, we are not debating the merits of barrel length, or the technical details about bullet stopping power. We are debating whether or not an objectively dangerous object should be regulated and restricted. In that discussion, all I need to know is one thing: is it dangerous? And then I can debate on how much of it should be allowed with or without restrictions. If this was about any other dangerous object, a knife, cars, exploding cigars, I wouldn’t need to know how they work in order to feel that the rest of us should have some protections against them
K
I did bring up the pride on nationality, race, etc. specifically but my point was pride in general, and that was brought up by BobLibDem. I simply responded that I see nothing wrong that he was proud of that.
Anyways, lets take XT’s suggestion and talk about some of the interesting ideas. I’ve already given my point of view on how I would ban handguns, I can respond to Algher’s ideas since you feel they merit discussion
Agree with both. Politics aside, if we’re sticking to the letter of the topic and just trying to ban handguns, we need a definition of them, and to make sure nobody here can manufacture them
Agree. Err on the side of caution and all that jazz
I would push for something more immediate, though it may be less realistic. As for shipping things out of country, I believe US law has some regulation that says you can be held accountable if you break US laws even if you’re not within US jurisdiction. The example I’ve always heard used was that you cannot escape US anti-pedophilia laws even if you go somewhere where that’s ok. This ban should extend not simply to US jurisdiction, but US citizens. I wouldn’t want people shipping guns out of the country for storage, I think US citizens should not be allowed to own handguns period, wherever they are. I can acknowledge that there are other parts of the world where its probably more needed, but I’ll leave those prosecutions up to local law enforcement because I don’t want a loophole
Fine and jail time, not just fine
You agreed to it. Either as a debate tactic or a serious belief, but you said we should restrict nukes.
It might be silly to you, but Lobohan is trying to get to the heart of the matter which is what, if any, restrictions should be on weapons. Joke or not, you’ve agreed that there should so it follows then that the next step of the debate is simply where the line is drawn and why, not whether there should be a line in the first place
And if you want to take that back, by all means do so, but then we’ll ask again: do you think nukes should have no restrictions at all?
Sometimes using an absurd hypothetical is the easiest way to get to the heart of a situation
Do you shoot? I personally find shooting to be very helpful in meditation, as I don’t shoot well unless I block everything else out but the target, sight picture, and what my body is feeling. Be fully immersed in the activity, IOW, which sounds a whole lot like Zen to me. I don’t see target shooting with firearms as that different than Kyudo. Kyudo isn’t Zen, although one can find elements of both in each other. For shooting and archery, there are a specific series of movements, done in a precise order, so that one can hit the target repeatedly in the same spot.
I too wouldn’t call meditation, “fun”, but I would call it a desirable activity. Read that way, I don’t find Academented’s post inconsistent.
As far as the OP, IMHO you could do it, provided you allocated sufficient resources. But, as many of you have already stated, it would require such an Orwellian intrusion into privacy, as well as Draconian penalties for handgun possession, that you’d make the U.S. unrecognizable to this middle-aged American. I do not think Americans would acquiesce anywhere near as readily (nor as peacefully) as, e.g., Australians did to their ‘assault weapons’ ban, post Port Arthur. The idea that criminals will go along with a handgun ban is, well, an interesting one.
Of course there is. 9mm ; .45 ; .357 ; .38 ; .50 ; .40… in fact, Wikipedia only lists 4 types of cartridges as specifically “dual-purpose handgun/rifle”.
Do (some) long guns and (a great many) sub-machine guns also fire these rounds, or can be modified to fire them ? Sure. Hell, you could even categorize any of them as “zip gun ammo” if you really wanted to be a derailing dillhole.
Still sucks to be them when the cartridge calibres that are overwhelmingly used to feed pistols get restricted, limited, registered, serial numbered or what the hell ever because lawmakers ain’t give a shit about splitting your semantic hairs.
[QUOTE=PatriotGrrrl]
It’s going to be interesting when law abiding gunowners switch to open carrying long guns, which is legal in many states. I wonder what type would be the most common?
[/QUOTE]
I’d presume that’s the point where criminals start openly carrying long runs too. Then the point where long guns get restricted, since the point of restricting handguns in the first place ostensibly would have been to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. If the wheat deliberately sets out to make it easy for the chaff to pass for wheat just to be contrary or assert its pointless, dumbass wheat rights, the milliner starts getting cranky.
That metaphor is so strained, it could file for a workman’s comp.
Your wiki article is woefully short.
I get what you mean but that’s not what I would call meditation, just deep concentration. The point of True Zen meditation (as I understand it - I’m no practitioner myself) is to [del]wear a kilt[/del] not focus on anything, nor feel anything, nor think of anything at all. Up to and including a pink elephant, which is really tough if you ask me.
IOW, to be absolutely empty and one with the void and…something zazen something wisdom something something enlightenment. And such. Which sort of precludes having emotions about it or while doing it. Anyway, it was just a dumb corny joke on my part 
It’s been an interesting discussion and I’ve followed it from the OP (above). I ask a ‘point of information’ here, since the debate appears to be conflating two very different futures.
It strikes me that there are two mutually exclusive scenarios with dramatically different ways of playing out. One possible instance is, may I call it perhaps the “evolutionary ban” in which, over some period of time, the legal impediment of 2nd Amendment is nullified by a constitutional modification, making an outright ban legally feasible. The other possibility is the “immediate ban” wherein some omnipotent power (aliens! OMG!) :)) simply casts aside the 2nd and institutes an immediate ban.
In the former, resistance to surrendering weapons should not be a major factor, given the population’s acceptance of a constitutional change having already been accomplished. So this scenario probably just involves practicalities like incentives for surrender, and a speculative timeline for acquisition of all the handguns already in circulation. In the later case though, resistance would likely be a much more problematic factor. Present attitudes to gun ownership would continue, despite whatever deus ex machina takes the 2nd out of the picture. Surely this scenario plays out very differently from the first.
OP, if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask the participants in this thread to explain which of these hypotheticals (or neither!) they are using in their arguments.
Yes, but not in the way you probably meant. If weapons can be restricted, what’s to stop the government from restricting them to “none”? I mean, if the whole point of government is to force people to do or not do things against their will, then what’s the deal with this “liberty” talk anyway?
Good points. I think the argument being made over whether or not Nukes can be banned is a complete hijack. But even in the evolutionary ban, I can see this (unlikely but possible, and I think just about the only possible way to get this ban in America) occurring due to a wave of public reaction to some horrible massacre/mass killing. However, after the ban (just like with Prohibition), people may well rethink things. And even if 60% of the public demands a BAN, RIGHT NOW! That doesn’t mean some 30% or so isn’t deeply resistant to a ban, which would cause significant resistance to surrendering all weapons.
Banning handguns does not equal banning all firearms. There’s absolutely no reason you have to revoke the Second Amendment, many jurisdictions already have strict handgun controls. Expanding this to the rest of the country would require a lot of political capital for a Federal level ban, and a sympathetic Supreme Court.
I’ll agree that this is a good way to go about it:
If you coupled any handgun restrictions with deep discounts on and next-to-free training with rifles, it might go over easier. A substitution instead of a subtraction.
For me personally, its a combination of the two. An immediate ban, but supported by the majority. Someone in another topic once proposed that the most likely way the American public would accept a serious ban on guns is if there was a widespread coup attempt against the US government that lead to a government crackdown. I sort of base my hypotheticals on that, though not specifically. In mine, the US public, in general, accepts a handgun ban that happens immediately
Nope, don’t mind at all…have at it. I’m still following along, but for several reasons I’m not posting as much in this thread right now (or in many other threads either). If you can get them to explain their arguments, more power too you!