Even that is not fully equalized since there is First Amendment value in the cover of a book. A fully equalized analogy would be that lawmakers want to ban books that use glued spines instead of stapled ones. And I think most of us would not see that as an incremental step toward totalitarianism.
What criteria would you use?
“All semi-automatic weapons are banned” - you just banned the vast majority of handguns, probably the majority of hunting rifles (I’m just guessing there - I’m not sure how the percentages break down) and some shotguns.
“All weapons capable of accepting a detachable magazine are banned”? Same problem.
“All guns capable of penetrating bulletproof vests are banned”? Say goodbye to every rifle ever made.
“All rifles with muzzle velocities exceeding X or total round energies exceeding Y are banned”? Hunting rifles are more powerful than intermediate cartridge weapons like assault rifles. They’re designed to take down bigger game than people. Any criteria based on the power of a round would ban wholesome hunting rifles first.
What criteria do you propose?
Lots of reasons - just because you can’t distinguish them on functional grounds doesn’t mean they’re identical. People may find that particular design for a weapon suitable for their purpose. A “neutered” AK-47/AKM/AK-74 still carries the legendary reliability and toughness - in a cheap package. That may fit some people’s needs on purely a functional level. They may appreciate the aesthetics or the history or the ergonomics - does that make them gun fetishists that fantasize about killing people?
I have a world war 2 Mauser rifle made on captured German equipment by the Yugoslavian resistance - I think it’s a really cool piece of history. The mauser is the iconic bolt action war rifle - owning one appeals to me more than owning some commercially produced hunting rifle of the same capabilities. Does that mean I must be using my scary war rifle to compensate for my small penis or what? Oh, wait, I forgot - weapons from the 1940s are collectors items and most people can understand why people appreciate them. It’s weapons from the 60s onwards that are scary evil weapons that only fetishists would be interested in.
When I participate in these AWB debates I sometimes feel like an Obama supporter who was confronted with “he’s a muslim!” Everyone would say “no, don’t worry, he’s not” - but a better answer would be “he’s not, but so what if he was?”. And so in these arguments, I say “don’t worry, these weapons aren’t the military weapons you’re thinking about” when I want to be saying “so what if they were?” - if anything is protected under the second amendment, it would be assault rifles. The NCA '34 is bullshit, the GCA '68 is bullshittier, and the '86 FOPA is the bullshittiest. So I object to this on the grounds that it works from the assumption that there’s something improper about civilians owning military weapons and that the second amendment is about “sporting purposes”.
To address your analogy directly - what if they did try to ban red cars? It’d be idiotic and pointless, so why not object on that basis? Similarly this doesn’t actually do anything practical and simply further infringes on rights and consumer choice. Why not fight it? It’s bad policy, bad government.
Another issue is the overall picture. Many many gun control advocates know this is bullshit, but they’ll take any gun ban they can get. If you continually compromise with someone whose position is the elimination of your rights, you end up with less and less until you have nothing. AWB type laws are the exact sort of divide and conquer bullshit they do to chip away at gun rights. People say “oh that’s a slippery slope fallacy” but it’s not exactly a slippery slope when there are well funded organizations out there whose ADMIT THAT THEIR VERY PURPOSE IS THE INCREMENTAL STEP BY STEP ELIMINATION OF YOUR RIGHTS through tactics exactly like this one. They’ll lie or manipulate in any way they can. I’m not saying everyone who advocates gun control is in that group - there are plenty of people who’d find some sort of middle ground - but there’s a substantial, vocal, well organized, and well funded group out to push that agenda.
American culture has always embraced military firearms. Millions of civilians have owned Springfield 1903 rifles, Mausers, Garands, M1 Carbines, etc. These weren’t “neutered” in any way - these were the same weapons a soldier would be issued.
Consumer taste hasn’t changed, but the tactics and technology of militaries have changed. So the common military rifle has changed from the 1903 Springfield to the M1 Garand to the M16. People generally own AR-15s for the same reason someone in 1950 would’ve owned an M1 Garand. The consumer taste hasn’t changed, the perception has - despite the M1 Garand being an unambiguous weapon of war, it looks mostly like a conventional hunting rifle so it didn’t scare soccer moms. Not so with the M16.
This is a fair point, though I honestly do not believe that any significant number of AK purchasers are really concerned with how well it’s going to perform while being abused in the field. That toughness is great for guerrilla fighters who don’t have the training or supplies to properly care for their weapons. I would be very surprised to find that any US resident abuses a rifle in that way out of anything other than carelessness, which is their own personal problem.
No, it makes them hobbyists. It’s perfectly OK to be a hobbyist, but I find it amusing at how angry people get over laws that interfere with their hobby.
Understand, I don’t support the law, I think it’s a silly law, but I also don’t buy the slippery slope argument, or analogies to banning books or effete men. Sort of a tempest in a teapot, with both sides screaming at each other over a law that ultimately doesn’t change anything of substance.
I’m curious - what do you think the main motivation is?
A reliable weapon is a reliable weapon - you don’t necesarily have to expect to endure unusual circumstances. If you ever want to use the rifle for anything for which you’ll value reliability, it’s good to have.
It can be a hobby but it’s related to a very serious issue. Debating politics on the SDMB is a hobby, but that doesn’t mean that if stating negative things about the government were banned, you could reasonably say “don’t get worked up about it, it’s just a hobby for you anyway” - some people believe gun rights are very serious, on par with any other natural right.
The analogies in this thread weren’t very good, but as I said, it’s most certainly a slippery slope. Almost exclusively the gun issue has progressed with more and more restrictions on gun with nothing in return. If on a scale of gun rights you start with a value of 100 (maximum rights/freedom), and part of society wants you to have 0 (guns banned entirely), and you compromise with that group halfway, you end up with 50. Another round of compromise and you’re at 25. Another round and you’re at 12.5. When you “compromise” with someone who seeks the elimination of something you want, and the concessions only go one way, you eventually end up with nothing.
It’s not as though the hardcore gun control advocate base is going to say “ok, well, we got those assault weapons banned, mission accomplished, we can rest now” - they’ll be saying "great, now that we’ve pryed our way in there again, what can we get next? Let’s push the cop killer bullet angle again or maybe saturday night specials.
You know PETA, right? They’re for the complete ban of all human ownership of animals.
So, whenever any law comes around banning “Exotic” animals in an area, they support it. Whenever any law comes around banning specific breeds of dogs in n area, they support it. Why? Because they see it as one step closer to their eventual goal of having no human-owned animals.
The exact same thing is happening with well organized, well funded gun control groups.
Logical fallacy.
They didn’t ‘start adding’ anything to Civilian rifles. They used the same upper (barrel) mold for the civilian rifles as they did for the military rifles because i was cheaper. Same with the receiver, only changing as little as was necessary.
What mass shootings have used “Assault Weapons”? The only one that I can remember was the DC Sniper, and that wasn’t done with an Assault Weapon, it was done with an XM-15, which were only produced after the AWB went into effect to comply with it.
In some countries, the idea of a woman walking outside without a headdress and full body coverings is obscene.
I understand that, but your argument that pistol grips are a function of something other than an increase in technology, efficiency, cost, safety, reliability is more the question I was asking.
And firearms are protected by the second amendment. It’s perfectly Equalized.
They buy them because they like the look of the gun, not because they’ll need the gun to perform after firing hundreds of rounds in a jungle environment, without the opportunity to clean the mud out of the receiver. It’s the type of reliability that is only of use in a war zone.
Absolutely, which is part of the disconnect. Guns are serious business, it involves Constitutionally protected rights, and it’s associated with this hobby where people collect guns because they’re neato. So the hobbyist starts complaining that his rights are being violated because nobody is allowed to manufacture his collectables anymore.
Except for the last time this ban was in effect, it expired and you got the rights back. We went back up that slippery slope.
I don’t buy slippery slope, the laws basically reflect the ideals of the populace. If the laws continue to restrict firearm ownership, it’s not because of some mythical slippery slope, it’s because the people who live here and vote want it that way.
If you ever feel like you may need to use a gun in an emergency situation (such as the inevitable zombie apocalypse) then there’s no such thing as too much reliability - whether you subject your rifle to mud baths or treat it nicely - it’s very nice to know it’s going to go bang. Proven reliable designs give that for you.
I don’t disagree that there are people that buy them for the aesthetics though. Probably usually a combination of factors.
That’s true I suppose. There are a wide variety of motivations among gun rights advocates.
Two things - first, it’s rare that that happens - and second, gun owners didn’t gain anything, they just lost it and then got it back. That’s not any sort of mutual compromise. And look where we are again - back to trying to ban it.
The way you phrase that makes it sound like the slippery slope is the cause of the problem - that’s not how it’s meant - it’s just a way of describing how inroads into restrictions can set a precedent and a comfort level for further restrictions. It’s not a causitive agent, it’s descriptive.
Laws don’t always reflect the ideals of the populace. In this case, gun control advocates do everything they can - lie, mislead, appeal to emotion in order to squeeze enough support to push this through. Is it really reflective of the ideals of a populace if you have to lie to them and confuse them about what they’re doing?
As an example of a slippery slope, look at actual “machine guns” - they’re heavily regulated in 1934, after that they’re owned by hundreds of thousands of people who have a perfect record with them (people mention the crimes committed by police here but they’re not relevant - police officers can still get guns through their departments the same as before). Legal fully automatic weapons were a complete non-issue. They caused no harm whatsoever over 50 years and hundreds of thousands of owners and millions of guns, but they were banned anyway. Confiscations of guns have always been preceeded by registration that was promised only to help solve crimes and stuff. There’s tons of actual evidence of the acceptance of some regulation then setting a precedent and being a stepping stone to further regulation.
This is absolutely right. It isn’t a slippery slope, it is a tug of war.
It is all the more reason to be vocal in supporting and upholding gun rights – because the other side is certainly vocal and supportive of restricting those rights.
I don’t know enough about guns to say. I’m just saying that if people are going to complain about the AWB for classifying guns based on features unrelated to functionality, then one logical alternative is to classify guns based on features which are related to functionality.
And one could, in principle, have a ban on all weapons with a rate of fire greater than 1000 rounds per second, or with a muzzle velocity greater than 1000 m/s. Those would be bans based on functionality which would be very narrow indeed: You could own anything but a railgun or a MetalStorm.
My point was that there was no criteria you could come up with of the sort I mentioned that would seperate the “bad” rifles that you could get the political clout to support without stirring up the masses against you by banning their “good” rifles along with it.
The key for the gun control lobby here is to divide and conquer. Convince the asshole who says “just stay away from my duck gun” that you’re not after him, and he’ll sell others out to dry. If there were to propose a ban that affected more than a small segment of the gun owning population, their chances of success are much higher.
I suggested this approach in another recent thread. By doing so, the gun control crowd will be able to throw off the auspices of “reasonable” and “common sense” and get down to the heart of their agenda, to ban all guns. This will be the wake up call that the non-AWB owning gun folks will need to get off of their rumps and speak up. Instead the anti gun lobby works from the “death by a thousand paper cuts” playbook in an attempt to divide and separate gun owners by the tools that they own:
But it’s not a tug of war, it is a slippery slope. This time, we just happened to have regained the footing we had earlier.
In reality, we’re never, ever, ever going to get our full auto firearms rights back. Why? Because they’re illegal. Why’re they illegal? Because they’re bad. Why’re they bad? Because they’re illegal, duh.
You are right. I can’t think of any possible reason why it wouldn’t be a good idea for everyone in the United States to have full auto weapons. What could possibly go wrong?
I know - reverting to the pre-1986 FOPA would be a disaster, wouldn’t it? History tells us that none of hundreds of thousands of civilians used their full auto weapons to commit crime over 50 years - a perfect record - and we can’t possibly risk such a disaster again.
The proof is in the pudding, as SenorBeef has already observed, but I just have to ask: why did you have the impression that full-auto weapons would be such a terrifying menace in the first place?
You’ve just confirmed what I stated my post.
Agreed, that would be ANARCHY!
Don’t bother looking at the facts, just go with your gut! Next, we can ban pornography because it makes people into sexual deviants! It’s not protected under the 1st amendment anyway. That’s not what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they said that!
Yes, all of those full auto weapons owned by folks who had an extensive background check, and the permission of the ATF and local law enforcement were unlikely to be used in a crime. Shocking result, really, that the weapons covered by the National Firearms Act are rarely used in crimes.
When Todderbob says he wants his full auto firearms back, does he mean pre-1986, or pre-1934? It’s not like gangsters were using fully automatic weapons during prohibition or anything.
I can’t speak for Todderbob, but just a return to the pre-1986 laws would be great in my opinion. The only significant effect of the Hughes amendment to the '86 FOPA was to inflate the price of civilian-transferable machine guns by a factor of 20 or so. We wouldn’t so much mind keeping the silly tax stamp requirement (for now); just allow new automatic firearms to be registered under the same laws.
Furthermore, I would hesitate to get all my information about pre-1934 criminal machine gun use from movies and other pop culture artifacts depicting the 20s and 30s as an era of bootleg liquor and Tommy gun-toting gangsters. Barring some actual research on the prevalence of fully automatic weapons in crimes during that period – and the relative lethality of fully automatic vs. semiautomatic firearms when employed by criminals – I think it would be very premature to say that the NFA of 1934 was at all a good idea.
Anybody feel like digging some up? 