"Banning one subset of guns while leaving others freely available is not going to have much effect on [delete]crime[/delete] the murder rate. How much [delete]crime[/delete] murder do you think was prevented by banning automatic weapons?
Or were you in fact arguing that banning a weapon reduces its ownership among law abiding citizens? Because no one has been arguing against the proposition.
Is the ultimate goal just to reduce the civilian ownership of guns, by whatever means necessary?
Did you read the rest of my post? If I’m missing something, why are you being so coy about it? 6 posts between us so that you don’t have to clarify what the fuck you were trying to say. :smack::smack:
Well, I was hoping I wouldn’t have to repeat a post I already made, but no matter. I’m not being coy, I can fully explain any position on may take on some topic without resorting to babyish tricks like yelling “2nd Amendment!” or “Liberal!” or “Racist!”
Here is what I posted:
**I claim that the heavy regulation in all states and outright banning in some states of fully automatic weapons did not degrade the ability for a lawful citizen to defend themselves, nor did it result in only criminals having access to fully automatic weapons. **
Note that I made no mention of crimes being committed, murders or anything else you may conjure up out of thin air.
[QUOTE=manson1972]
I claim that the heavy regulation in all states and outright banning in some states of fully automatic weapons did not degrade the ability for a lawful citizen to defend themselves, nor did it result in only criminals having access to fully automatic weapons.
[/QUOTE]
[I actually addressed this earlier, but not sure if you ever replied. At any rate, what of it? You are talking about a very small percentage of all guns, even at that time when basically they were available without restriction. And you are talking about guns that don’t really have that much utility for lawful citizens to use to defend themselves verse the higher cost, again, even at the time they were widely available. So, you are talking about something with marginal utility and marginal numbers that had a marginal effect on overall freedom and impacted a very marginal number of citizens, especially considering that a lot of the guns were grandfathered in…which meant it only affected people who might have wanted to buy a new automatic weapons after the statutes went into effect (i.e. it didn’t even take most of the existing guns off the streets).
Since there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what you are claiming, perhaps you could take the time to clarify whatever it is that you are claiming? just sayin’
Deliberate misunderstanding it seems to me. But whatever, my claim is in posts 489 and 504, you can tell because it starts off with “I claim…”
But sure, I’ll post it again:
**I claim that the heavy regulation in all states and outright banning in some states of fully automatic weapons did not degrade the ability for a lawful citizen to defend themselves, nor did it result in only criminals having access to fully automatic weapons. **
Actually, I think this post is what was being discussed:
This is something that can be argued, but you worded this in a way that would allow you to dodge any critique. You then rephrased to this:
That’s fine - though entirely pointless. I can do it to: *I claim that the heavy regulation in all states and outright banning in the US in 1989 of RU486 did not degrade the ability for a lawful citizen to defend themselves, nor did it result in only criminals having access to fully automatic weapons. *
The reason your claim is pointless is because you haven’t established the background or connection of the cause and effect of the two claims you are making - that being the prevalence of defense with full auto weapons prior to the regulation and banning, and the prevalence of criminal possession vs lawful possession of full auto weapons prior to the regulation and banning. Or, this:
I think this claim is fine and I agree though as I said, it’s entirely pointless. Other pointless things would be if you were to claim that the gravitational pull of Haley’s Comet as it gets closer to Earth does not degrade the ability for lawful citizens to defend themselves.
In the same way that banning kiddie porn doesn’t have a massive infringement on the 1st, sure…the banning of a very marginal group of weapons that had a very marginal effect on crime and was used by a very small group of people and made up a very small percentage of guns has a very marginal effect and infringement on the 2nd. I guess if that’s your claim and you feel this is worth discussing and pointing out then, sure, I agree.
I felt it was worth it, which is all I really need.
In any event, if
why was the ban even enacted then? Same hysteria about guns that we have today? If the ban did nothing for anyone, what was the point?
why aren’t criminals flooding the streets with fully automatic weapons, since they are so hard for law-abiding citizens to get? Why aren’t mass shooters using fully automatic weapons to mow down as many people as they can? Is the answer “because they are too hard to get”?
So? They were never very popular in the first place. Quite uncommon. What is your point?
This is like saying “the heavy regulation in all states and outright banning in some states of dragsters did not degrade the ability for a lawful citizen to transport themselves, nor did it result in only criminals having access to dragster.” Meanwhile, what they want to do is ban all fuel powered cars- leaving us only all electric vehicles.
*“You can still transport yourself! Those 400Hp muscle cars are designed for ONE THING- racing! The right to transport yourself only applies to regulated freight carriers. Cars kill 35000 people a year!”
*
I read his question as “why were post-1986 machine guns banned?” and my answer was going to be “I have no @#$%ing idea, you’d have to ask the retards that passed the ban. It doesn’t appear to be related to any notable incident involving machine guns or as a response to some (then current) public outcry over the issue.”
