Again, I don’t want to get into the thirteen page back and forth about whether Australia “banned guns” or “confiscated guns.”
But you admit that as I own an AR-15, an Australian gun law would ban that type of gun and cause that gun of mine to be confiscated. Any semi-auto shotgun: same. There is no misleading on that point.
Now you may be all for that, but let’s not pretend that an Australian-style law would require the surrender of many types of rifles, shotguns, and pistols that Americans currently possess in their homes. Some of the others that the government would graciously allow us to keep would require memberships in shooting clubs and the like.
For as much as you claim that our side is misleading, I claim that your side is misleading because the implication is that you would leave everything as is but only take away the guns that NRA radicals own. That is simply not the case.
Yes, the shotguns (or nearly all of them) and some the rifles. Definitely NOT, as you put it, “grandpa’s squirrel gun”, unless he was hunting squirrels with an AR-15, which seems unlikely.
Handguns under .38 are mostly fine (assuming licensing). Over that can be done but much more difficult.
For the most part, Australians voluntarily gave their guns up, with a few holdouts who simply kept them at home and rarely use them (I’m also fine with this).
From my cite, Australians still own more guns per capita than most developed nations. The idea there was a draconian confiscation is still at deep odds with reality.
They also restrict licensing to people who do not have a criminal background or a history of mental illness (2 things people in the US actually support for gun ownership, much less licensing, but has never passed due to NRA lobbying).
Admittedly, if these sorts of measures were passed in the US, it would affect me to the tune of a couple handguns (mine are mostly under 0.38) and a couple shotguns. I don’t own any assault style rifles (got close a few times though) and a few bolt-actions would be fine. I have a handgun license, and I imagine licensing would not be made too difficult for people who gave already jumped a few hurdles. I consider it an acceptable cost.
What’s misleading, and it’s a fine point to be sure, is the idea that my side wants to take away your guns.
It suggests that my goal is to ensure that you don’t own an AR-15, when I really only want to ensure that some mentally unstable 21 year old doesn’t have access to an AR-15 when he goes back to his old high school or a movie theater or church to make something horrible happen.
If you can stop that 21 year old… I don’t care if you have 100 AR-15’s stashed in your basement. Decorate your lawn with the fucking things.
The point about Australia and the UK is that they HAVE stopped that 21 year old, and we haven’t. Does your side have a solution to this problem?
Why would hunting squirrels with an AR-15 be unlikely? The AR-15 makes a great varmint rifle: they’re compact, accurate, with low recoil, and they fire a round that has a reduced risk of overpenetration but is less likely to maim (but not kill) its target than something firing, say, a .22LR.
But point of fact, you do want to take away (at least) some of my guns.
The rest of your post, at first glance, seems to say you don’t but you place the impossible condition on me to police 320 million people. And because I cannot do that, you should take away my AR-15, even though nobody will use it to shoot anyone.
So, how is it misleading to say that you want to take away at least some of my guns? I mean, you’ll kindly leave me some, or one, or who knows how many or under what conditions I can keep them; you aren’t the spokesperson for all that.
But you are saying here that you would take at least some of my guns. That’s not misleading to say it.
I oppose gun control and support gun rights more than most people. Nevertheless, EP is correct. Your rights to arm and defend yourself have never been better observed and protected. Anybody who tells you differently is selling something. Gun control proponents have been fighting a losing battle since the Assault Weapons Ban passed a generation ago.
The USC 2nd Amendment authorized a well-regulated civilian militia, rather than a standing army, to defend against invasion and insurrection. With a massive full-time military establishment, that excuse is obsolete.
The USC 2nd Amendment authorizes Americans (citizens? residents? visitors? terrorists?) to keep and bear arms. Doesn’t specify WHAT armaments. Numerous arms are already banned. We mostly don’t get to carry spring stilettos or switchblades, morningstars, or backpack nukes - and don’t aim pocket lasers at aircraft. The 2nd COULD be interpreted to allow slingshots, pocket knives, brass knuckles, and nothing more.
A firearms “ban” in America is irrelevant because anyone with a 3D printer can whip-up something that shoots. The cat is out of the barn, folks. Public possession of firearms may be controlled, but that’s about it. Firearms are here to stay - till ubiquitous AI cop-drones target suspected gun-carriers. Don’t handle your cellphone suspiciously, boy.
You almost got it. Saying I “would” take away your guns is different than saying I “want to” take away your guns. “Want to” implies that the taking away of your guns is the goal, when your ownership of guns is a non issue. It’s not about you, has never been about you, and will never be about you. It’s about that other person, the deranged person who wants a high capacity semi-automatic rifle so he can kill dozens of people. I “want to” make sure he can’t get his hands on that rifle. If you can make THAT happen while you keep owning your own guns, I’m 100% OK with that.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. When I describe something as “impossible” it won’t already have been done by a couple dozen countries.
It’s only impossible if you refuse to do the things that makes it possible.
I’m quite certain Nancy Lanza would have said the same thing all the way up to December 13th, 2012. You cannot know that. You don’t think so, certainly. You don’t hope so, certainly. But you cannot know that. The only way your AR-15 can never be used to shoot somebody is if it is a pool of melted slag.
I’ve been so entertained by the whacky logic in this!
I never thought we’d see innocent children separated from parents and confined to chain-link pens.
I never thought we’d see people denying the science confirming climate change.
I never thought the US would elect an ignorant, inexperienced president.
The unthinkable has happened. Therefore, the Zombie Apocalypse is certainly a possibility!
OR
I never thought we’d see tent cities of homeless people.
I never thought we’d see anyone shooting up a church or synagogue.
I never thought we’d see an anti-education Secretary of Education.
The unthinkable has happened. Therefore, people turning into kumquats is certainly a possibility!
Remember, first they* take away your First Amendment rights so they* can take away all your other amendment rights.
*Feel free to replace “they” with whatever group you distrust.
That’s a ridiculous hypothetical though. You also can’t guarantee that someone won’t break into your home, steal a lamp, and use it to beat someone to death.
The type of weapon is just a detail, murder is the problem.
Guns are powerful, words are powerful, rights are powerful. Without pesky 1st amendment rights the government wouldn’t have to hear all these complaints, they could shut down any newspaper that speaks against them. But we also get the biased media circus we have today. With 5th amendment rights criminals that are probably guilty are not compelled to testify against themselves, but that protects the innocent too. With 2nd amendment the people have the right and to keep and bear arms, but some people will use weapons to murder others. We can not legislate away murder, it’s just human nature unfortunately.
It’s a huge country, 300,000,000 people. To have freedoms and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people there will always be a small amount of bad along with the vast good those freedoms provide.
I do not want to get involved in this “great debate,” if that’s what it is, but this statement caught my eye:
How do you know nobody will shoot a person with it? Is the gun permanently disabled? If the AR-15 is at hand when the bad guy comes, are you committed to only firing warning shots?
I hate to tell you this but the 2nd amendment doesn’t do anything to protect your freedoms in a practical sense. Currently, the pro-gun rights people are supporting the more authoritarian of the two parties in the USA, which has put a proto-fascist person as their leader. Additionally, pro-gun rights people are supporting the party that has demonstrated increasing hostility to democratic principles.
But even ignoring all of that, the 2nd amendment still doesn’t actually protect your freedoms. This idea is pure delusion. And furthermore, it is quite obvious that many countries have as much freedom as the USA without considerable civilian firearm ownership.