This is the same fallacy used by anti-abortionists in painting the other side as “pro-abortion” (i.e. pulling out selected bits of extreme rhetoric, much of which is a reaction to the assault on their rights in the first place).
No.
With the proper parts. Now try getting those parts. I wish you luck on that, by the way. Modification without the proper parts will result in a weapon that’s just as dangerous to the user as it is to anyone else, if not more so.
If a ban on all guns were impossible because it would violate the laws of physics, or because politicians all had a chip in their heads that would short out their brains if they tried to pass it, or because God Almighty would personally intervene to prevent it, your criticism would be valid.
Of course, the actual bar to such an outcome is the political pressure applied by gun-rights supporters. Thus, your criticism degenerates into a circular argument, rather like the argument that there’s no point in maintaining a powerful military because nobody in their right minds would attack us.
Often, they’re also lumping the case of Joe Green-bandana Gang-Banger shooting Jack Purple-bandana Gang-Banger from the neighboring turf into the “someone you know” category.
The Supreme Court addressed that in the Miller decision:
In other words, the term “arms” in the Second Amendment refers to the sort of weapons generally carried as individual weapons by the militia (e.g. pretty much the common-sense definition of personal weapons, not crew-served weapons, WMD, etc).
It should also be noted that Miller (the defendant) was no longer among us when the case reached the Supreme Court, and so the defense was pretty much unheard from. The Court thus erred in its finding of fact (sawed-off shotguns were known as “trench sweepers” in the Great War, and thus did have the sort of utility that fit the Court’s criterion).
A ban on all guns is not going to happen mainly because it would be logistically imposible to enforce. You might as well try to stop everyone in the US from jerking off as to try to confiscate all the guns.
There is also no public desire for such a thing and a Constitutional challenge would probably prevent it as well.
Beyond that, very few, if any, lawmakers on the national stage have any desire or motivation to push for such a ban in the first place.
But thanks for proving my point, you hysterical, over-scared ninny.
I think the line has been drawn. And It’s reasonable. Nukes, bombs, bazookas are ordinance. And strawmen. Guns are not.
Registration? No. The anti-gun crowd have played their hand and too many of them want a complete ban. So registration is a no go.
Gun-safety classes? I’m sort of middle of the road about that. I’ve been shooting since I was 10 years old. I think gun safety should be taught by your parents. I would not mind a few dollars ‘tax’ on a purchase to be put towards gun safety programs, and to make classes affordable.
Waiting periods? Ehhh, I guess, as long as it’s no more than a few days. I’ve never bought a gun, so its not something that I can really relate to. Waiting periods? Sounds OK.
Trigger Locks? Kinda pointless. Eh. Sell them with the gun if you must. It will increase the price, but there is no guarantee that any one will use them, or that every one should.
What bothers me about the anti-gun side is that most of them support any and all legislation that restricts gun ownership. The AWB demonstates that it does not have to be good legislation, just that it is gun legislation. I don’t think I should have to defend my hobby against people that don’t know anything about it.
Are you ever going to come up with a cite for your continued declarations that those who voted for the AWB didn’t know anything about guns?
General Wesley Clark supported that ban. He was not a legislator, of course, but he supported the ban. Does he know anything about guns?
(Ahem…)
I believe the author of the remarks quoted is the much esteemed vool, Max. While you may disagree with him, there is no reason to insult him, he is not now, nor has ever been, me.
Just like a ban on all alcoholic beverages will never happen because it is logistically impossible to enforce, right? Given the bountiful examples of irrationality displayed historically in duly constituted law, I’m not quite so sanguine about the “logic” of our elected officials. And rather I’m surprised you are since you’re so vocal about the stupidity of the regime currently in power.
I’m of two minds on this one. First, it seems inherently stupid to me to cause persons who already own a gun, or guns to undergo a waiting period of any duration. I mean, they’ve already got a gun; I don’t suppose they just use that one, eh? On the other hand, requiring first-time purchases only to undergo a waiting period, means that a permanent national registry of firearms owners would have to be maintained - and that is something I cannot support.
We register cars, for fuck’ sake, so what’s wrong with registering guns? Do you have something against solving murders? Does the 2nd Amendment say the government doesn’t have a right to know what you own?
I’m going to make a sideways note about registration and altering guns. Without complicated tools, with only about, what, thirty bucks of material available at a hardware store, I can make a fairly accurate indirect fire weapon that can, if sighted, hit something about the size of a car at the distance of, eh… hundred yards? That’s pretty much requiring a drill, a hacksaw, and some duct tape or appropriate glue.
With a normal handyman’s tools, you can build your own damn guns. We dropped plans on how to do it back in WWII, if I recall correctly.
With my family’s workshop, I could probably build a submachine gun off the plans of the old ‘grease gun’. Or, given time and materials, an atomic bomb. It’d require a lot of time, but I could probably make one without even digging up the computer powered milling machine I saw once. (Desk size! Neat. Very neat) I’d just need the uranium or plutonium. It’s not hard to make a plug-and-socket style bomb. Just slap two masses together.
With a little hard work, you can turn a bulldozer into a tank that can not be stopped short of a larger bulldozer.
With a standard kitchen, I could arm the previous indirect fire weapon with poison gas rounds.
And if all else fails, you can kill someone with six inches of wire.
We don’t register cars, Dio. We register cars that drive on public roads. Cars that don’t use public roads don’t have to be registered. The equivalent would be the CCW licence. Because, after all, there are no dangerous guns. There are only dangerous people. (There are hazardous guns, though. Those are the poorly maintained ones)
Registering anything that could be a lethal weapon involves registering anything that can be used to make one, as well. And truthfully, anything can be a lethal weapon. It’s not hard.
No; that’s the Fourth.
Automobile titles are registered as a means primarily to collect taxes; not solve crime.
And because registering guns would be incredibly expensive (see Canada) and it can’t be shown it’ll do a damn thing (again, see Canada). We’ve had this argument here already and were entirely unable to identify any significant benefits of maintaing a permanent national gun registry.
However, mandatory gun-safety classes are off the table, because the well has been poisoned by the use of hoop-jumping requirements as a form of de facto prohibition.
It affected people who owned the prohibited weapons. My husband had a beautiful rifle with an offending scope of which he had to dispose. Law-abiding target shooters were punished for the behavior of an aberrant few - all so that the career politicians could grand stand.
The red herring of leaping to private ownership of nukes and heavy armanent is often used by the anti-gun crowd to undermine the 2nd Amendment. It helps to go back to the language and technology of the time. Arms were understood to be personal weapons - not heavy artillary (although if anyone has info about some minutemen having their own personal cannons, I’d love to see it).
I can have a cat or dog in my neighborhood - but not cows or horses. This is due to the proximity of my neighbors. It is the same thing with weapons. Storing a gun or a rifle in my home has no real impact upon my neighborhood. Keeping heavy armaments may be construed to infringe upon others property rights due to the size and risk.
The Fourth says no such thing. It especially does not prohibit the government from knowing what you purchase.
At the risk of sounding like Adlerbran… My experience is my cite. The AWB was silly, stupid legislation. It died because it was silly, stupid legislation. Originally voted in by uninformed people.
DTC – What do you know about guns?
The bare minimum that I had to learn in the military as well as some casual experience target shooting with rifles and hand guns at my in-laws’ farm. I’ve also been duck hunting with shot guns. Didn’t hit shit, though.