To be honest, so does the pro-gun side. 
Otherwise, I completely agree with your #1 & #2.
Czarcasm, I don’t need to favor any militia group to “take over” for the government. An armed populace serves as a check on the government, not as a replacement for it.
If I had to guess, I would say that DC and Mass have the strictest laws.
Do you really think that any politician in Washington DC cares about an armed uprising? They may be concerned about loss of revenue from lobbyists and loss of votes from the people the lobbyists represent. Today’s politician knows how easy it is to pander to the common man, and fully realizes how disorganized the armed populace is. Without organization, and a common goal to rally behind, the armed populace is no check on our government.
Let’s take DC for example, then.
What are the gun control laws like in the states that surround DC?
From what I understand, Virginia is pretty liberal in terms of purchase, carry, and ownership of firearms. Less so Maryland.
May I ask where you are going with this?
Police have access to the same types of weapons as civilians, so if they are “outgunned,” it is by choice. Police typically have a sidearm, a shotgun in the cruiser, and in some cities a rifle in the trunk.
The limits on weaponry typically reflect the ordnance / arms distinction.
Personal Arms weapons technology has not significantly advanced since the advent of the machine gun and the semi-automatic. Double-action revolvers have been around, for example, since the early 1800s. These allowed you to fire a round with each pull of the trigger without needing to re-load (until you shot your 5-7 rounds) and with one hand.
To establish limits / regulation, we need to be sure that the regulation does not impact the RIGHT. There is minimal regulation on speech BECAUSE it is recognized as a RIGHT. Even the smallest bit of speech regulation gets attacked to avoid any chance of impacting that Right. I would argue that the vast majority of pro-individual Right 2nd Amendment folks would allow similar regulations as speech proponents allow. For arms, we are fine with not allowing under 18 to purchase, though we allow them to use arms under adult supervision. We are fine with stopping convicted felons from owning firearms, though we might quibble on what types of felons should be on the list (I am partial to only stopping violent felons from owning arms). We support keeping some sub-section of the mentally ill from legally keeping arms. However, once you take the regulations into a space that impacts the Right of the people to keep AND bear arms, we get a bit testy.
Sure.
Let’s say it is raining outside, and you need to keep dry, so you buy the best umbrella in the store. When you go outside and put your umbrella up, it’s pouring rain everywhere but on you, so alls well, right? Not right-your feet are getting soaked because your PF Flyers are sopping wet. The rain may not be flowing down on you, but there is nothing preventing the rain from coming in from all sides.
That’s what is happening in DC-the guns are flowing in from all sides.
Ok, so you agree with me then – gun control laws in DC don’t work.
By the way, that’s another peeve of mine. When gun control advocates propose a new law for, say, New Jersey, they never say “But of course our proposed law will never work to reduce crime. We fully expect it to fail, and then we will use the failure as an excuse to demand new laws.”
So we should wave our hands and magically disappear all the guns on the planet? Or maybe just expand DC’s gun control laws to encompass Virginia and Maryland? But wait, Maryland borders on Pennsylvania, so we’ll have to expand the law to that state as well. When your expanded law reaches Pakistan, let me know. I want to watch you tell them to disarm.
How do you propose we stop the rain from falling?
Actually, it’s a pretty good argument for a standardized set of gun control laws.
Sport shooting is target shooting, yes? Do target shooting or “varmit eradication” require a more powerful or higher-capacity gun than, say, deer hunting?
As for your Revolutionary War rifle, I congratulate you on owning such a unique item of American and family history. I have no desire whatsoever to take it away from you and your heirs (using it, on the other hand, maybe not; those things are pretty damn unsafe by modern standards).
I have no problems with those who collect antique or modern firearms providing that those items that are capable of greater damage (and misuse) than required to reasonably support hunting (in which I include “varmit eradication”) and self-defense are rendered permanently inoperable (or at least “reversible only with nontrivial effort and ability” inoperable). Possibly we should allow waviers for items of historical value if you can convince a committee that such modification would significantly erode its utility to current or future academic study.
JRB
How cute-the “We can’t get rid of all the guns, so why bother having any laws at all!” argument. I’m not even going to bother with the standardized reply about applying the same “logic” to other laws-it’s been done before.
I guess that means “yes.”
Anyway, there have also been gun control laws passed at the federal level, e.g. the NFA of 1938; the GCA of 1968; the Brady Act; and the AW Ban of 1994. As far as I know, none of these have had a significant effect on crime rates.
It’s not as though guns are inherently immoral, like burglary or abortion (to some people). If gun control laws don’t reduce crime, then there’s really not much point in having them. No matter how great the world would be if they actually worked.
Anyway, you have explained to me why (in your opinion) gun control laws don’t work. I don’t see how you can avoid the logical consequences of your position.
The answer is to find some way to stop the rain from coming in, so to speak. A larger roof, better walls, fixing the leaks. What you don’t do is toss the umbrella, even though it isn’t doing a perfect job-you keep it until something better comes along.
Hunting ranges from doves (shotgun) to Moose (high powered rifle). There is not a cartridge currently in use that does not have a hunting use. Everything from the .22 (squirrel) to the .50 cal (Moose - though I am just guessing here, I used a .300 magnum round since that is what I own).
Self defense allows for any handgun (when travelling), plus all shotguns (preferred for many home defense uses).
Now we get to the semi-auto question. Semi-auto is used for most waterfowl, and also has significant value for self defense. In both cases there can be either multiple targets or fast moving targets that warrant the use of semi-automatic weapon.
Well, firstly, deer hunting rifles are pretty darn powerful. They’re at least as powerful as a WW I M1 Garand rifle, which is considerably more powerful than a modern M-16A2.
Secondly, if your varmit is a bear? Yeah. Yeah, you’re gonna need a bigger gun.
(Edit: ) Or hunting moose, good call, I was thinking Buffalo, but we don’t hunt those anymore. Moose, you’re going to want something big. Or boar.
Thirdly, there’s a bunch of different kinds of sport shooting, from quick draw to trap. It’s not the same as target shooting at all.
Cite, please, as to unsafe quality of a 300 year old firearm in good condition. It’s metal. (Note: Isn’t a rifle. It’s a musket)
Fascinating. I have no problem with people who want to practice free speech, provided they don’t say anything I disagree with.
Your goals do not match with the realm of what is possible in reality.
We are beating this analogy to death I fear…
Rain is GOOD. We WANT rain. SOME people don’t want to get wet, others like to dance and sing in the rain. If you don’t want to get wet, you can stay inside in your home. The government, however, is supposed to recognize my RIGHT to get as wet as I like!
By the way, I have a different hypothesis as to why gun control laws don’t work. Just my own personal theory, but I’ll throw it out for discussion:
A huge percentage of killings in the U.S. are (1) low life street thugs shooting eachother or shooting innocent bystanders; or (2) domestic incidents, e.g. husband shoots wife.
Gun control laws don’t have much effect on the first category of killings because low-life street thugs face much bigger risks than the risk of being busted for carrying a gun. At the same time, it’s pretty unlikely that they will be stopped and frisked. So they don’t care about gun control laws at all. And that’s assuming that these people think about anything. The reality is that a lot of street thugs are drug addicts and/or borderline mentally retarded and probably don’t think much about anything at all.
With respect to the second category of killings, there are plenty of other deadly weapons available to an enraged husband or boyfriend (or girlfriend). Often a knife is more deadly than a gun would have been. So gun control laws won’t have much effect on this sort of killing either.
I think gun control could reduce crime measurably if we gave the police free reign to stop and frisk anyone who seemed suspicious to them. Actually, the current gun control laws we have in place are probably sufficient to accomplish such an end. If the courts and civil libertarians would allow it. Which they probably wouldn’t.
I can’t think of any way to use weapons laws to prevent domestic killings. The fact is that a typical house is full of potentially deadly weapons.