# Those for new gun control laws... **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 3, 2017, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847 "2017-10-03T05:06:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 145
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2017, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847/145 "2017-10-06T15:56:41Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Then I apologize if I went too far. But I don’t know what limits you are placing on things. When you say that people should not be punished, I take that as meaning having access to things restricted from them, as that is how you define punishment for any other form of gun control. Broadly - punishment is some kind of sanction or penalty as a consequence of some other action. For example, two people A and B both legally possess a slide fire bump stock. A commits crimes using it, and B does not. It would be appropriate to punish A for their actions. It would not be appropriate to punish B for the actions of A. The question of whether the slide fire stock should be legal is independent of the actions of A. This gets magnified if there is a group of people that are represented by B, and a single person that is A. It is no punishment to restrict the ability of people to have nukes, because people never had that in the first place. The question of whether to limit nukes can be addressed on its own merits. > [@](#): > > I do not find it all that far out there that security contractors like blackwater would request the ability to develop and use of small tactical nukes like the old davy crockett (hopefully updated), or the use of nerve agents for the purpose of securing sensitive areas. There are people out there that will want these devices, and I don’t see an argument that stops at, well, wherever it is that you are willing to stop. > > To be honest, I find it far more likely that security contractors will try to justify the use of WMDs far before the govt comes around to confiscate your guns, and yet, I am supposed to treat the idea that the govt is going to come around and confiscate your guns seriously. How is that not hyperbole? Should those who are for the responsible regulation of firearms refuse to engage with anyone who brings up govt confiscation as someone not to be taken seriously? I’m not sure how private militarized security is relevant. I’m going to ignore it otherwise. Given that confiscation (not for all) has happened, I think the idea of it is much more realistic. But really, the number of people advocating for private nukes is virtually zero. The number of people advocating for outright bans on guns and/or confiscation is much larger. > [@](#): > > Let’s back up then. You have indicated, I think, that you agree with the laws against machine guns. If that is the case, what justification do you use to deny a machine gun to someone that wants one and claims that they will use it responsibly? I’m not talking here about heller or sc court decisions based on 2A, nor even about existing legislation, as all of that is easily changed. But, within 2A, and within your personal feelings on the matter, what limits do you put on the sorts of weaponry that one can arm themselves with. There is a large difference between what I think should be legal, what the law says should be legal, and what is actually legal. I personally do not agree with the laws against machine guns and if I wore a black robe for a living and had 4 other co-workers who agreed with me, I’d overturn the NFA. Barring that, I’d like Congress to do so. I do not think that is ever going to happen. But hey, Ruth and Kennedy could retire and then things would get interesting. If machine guns were legal in my state, I would buy one. But if you want to talk about what the law is, then the criteria for what is available to restrict are those weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, and not in common use. It’s circular for sure, but that’s what the law is. AR-15 pattern semi-auto rifles are the most common rifle in the US. There are 10s of millions of them. > [@](#): > > Manson said that you feel that people should be able to arm themselves as well as the police, but I don’t remember your positions well enough to say if that is the case. If this is the case, are you talking normal police, or swat? Is it typical police gear, or anything that they have access to? Referring to using police and soldiers as a metric, but mostly focused on magazine size, I said this: > [@A gun control legislation thread!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gun-control-legislation-thread/757276/84): > > It’s not a maximum - but it’s a guidepost. It’s a less arbitrary way of defining what is reasonable. Police arguably go through analysis to determine what the most effective carry tools are for them. Piggybacking off of this analysis is a means to establish a baseline. If it is reasonable for police to carry 17 round mags in their service weapons, then it is reasonable for individuals to carry 17 round mags. This isn’t to say larger magazines are unreasonable. > > Another facet of this line of reasoning is that laws that prohibit people from various things related to arms sometimes exempt police, off duty police, or even retired police. This makes no sense. Just like the proposal in the OP - when exempting hunters it’s an effort to divide gun rights advocates. The idea is that gun control folks aren’t after hunters, so they should acquiesce to various restrictions. It has had limited success in the past but I think many folks have wised up to this strategy of division. > > **And by including police within the the same group of people that any limits will be imposed upon, then there is the expectation that police will not support restrictions that make them less effective. It adopts every argument that a police force may employ to support their choice in arms.** The military aspect arises because of the militia component and that is more of a constitutional argument. You didn’t participate in this thread, however it’s more fleshed out in the posts before and after. I would add that the one of the core purposes of the second amendment is self defense. I think there is an argument to be made that standard kits may include things that are offensive in nature, and for those I think they have less basis of support. This also is focused on arms, not ordinance. > [@](#): > > Just out of curiosity, Bone, IYHO, is this the sort of post that I should be taking seriously? You can make your own determination. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > He used that as an excuse to deflect from my questions of what changes, if any, he would make to 2A in order to both protect his right to a gun, and to protect my right to not be shot. (Seems he should at least be up for clearing up the comma confusion) He also used it as a way to deflect from where I see hypocrisy in his position where he claims to support causes that he agrees with, but when those causes conflict, he chooses guns over the other causes, which, to me, means that he supports guns over any other cause. It is not hypocrisy to prioritize which causes to support. I am essentially a single issue voter, though I use it as a disqualifier more than anything. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-for-new-gun-control-laws/797847)._