The debate over assault weapons

[d'ranger]

When the parents of slain children from Uvalde were advocating for raising the age to purchase assault (type) rifles to 21 one of our finer senators replied that 18,19 & 20 year olds were in the military with assault weapons. Proper retort would be list all the restrictions imposed on those weapons, such as you are issued bullets when you have a target. His other response? It's unconstitutional since their interpretation is there can be no restrictions on firearms. Let's the shootings continue until the morals improve.

edit: here is a link to the Frontline doc on the Uvalde murders of little children including there efforts to get the age to purchase raised.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/...email&utm_campaign=ICYMI&utm_content=05192023

edit2: So might as well throw in this excellent piece from someone who spent years in the gun manufacturing industry:
https://www.propublica.org/article/...ampaign=majorinvestigations&utm_content=river

It's an excellent read and he ends with this:
You know, I tell the story that 15, 20 years ago, the industry named guns like the Smith & Wesson 629 or the Remington 870 because you had [industry] attorneys that knew that even the names of guns could be important. They could encourage people to do irresponsible things. And so you’d never wanted to even name things that might encourage bad things to happen. Now we have a gun called the Wilson Urban Super Sniper. I mean, what are you supposed to do with that? We now have a gun called the Ultimate Arms Warmonger. What are you supposed to do with that? We now have an AR-15 company called Rooftop Arms, as in when you don’t get what you want, you vote from the rooftops. And what happened in Highland Park? A kid got up and killed people from a rooftop. You see the old self-imposed responsibility; those old norms of behavior have been just completely trashed.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

They want yours too.
If owning a fully semi automatic rifle really bothers you,
, follow jocal's example

...

But Liquid's post was about "assault weapons" and there are a whole bunch of semiauto's that are not assault weapons. Almost every Ruger 10-22 is specifically exempted, for example.

When I first brought up banning battlefield .22's back in 2017, I put it in the thread about STOOPID shit because I genuinely, if naively, believed that it was an idea that could not have any political support.

I was wildly wrong on that one, huh? Dogballs.

As I noted at the time, banning "assault weapons" would not affect Billy's Mini 14.

Because a 10-22 is soooo much more lethal than a Mini 14.

Do you really think lethality matters? Or common sense? Banning battlefield .22's is a LOT more sensible than taking indoor militias to the Supreme Court, which in turn is a LOT more sensible than taking the idea that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to modern tech to the Supreme Court.

There's no sense, common or otherwise, to be found in commonsense gungrabbiness.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

@Olsonist , @Not for nothing @Ishmael @Keith

criminals killing each other

?? is this a bad thing ??

Yes, on a number of levels. The violence from the stupid drug war spills over to innocent bystanders, as it did in this case. It also costs a lot of money and spawns a lot of civil liberties abuses while continuing to fail, decade after decade. Last but not least, many of these stupid drug war drive-by's are used by non-readers to justify banning battlefield .22's and other such weapons of mass destruction. When that prohibition program similarly fails, it too will cause doubling down, more mandatory minimums, more abuses of property rights and the fourth amendment, etc.

Tell me why stupid drug war drive by's might NOT be a bad thing.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The same logic applies to weapons that regularly get used to kill kids in schools, get used for gang drive-by's, get used by fucked-up dads with road rage, and get used to blow suicides heads off. I don't have to be a certified US Marine Corps weapons expert and know every intimate detail about caliber, rifling, barrel cooling, cartridge manufacture and fuck-knows-what-else, to have a valid opinion that maybe the weapons that are very specifically made to kill people, and regularly get used to slaughter people should be removed from the country.

Heck, even Bloomberg-$pon$ored Marine Colonels get shit wildly wrong and do it in presentations to a court!

I'm not certified but I have seen what a .223 can do and he's wrong. It can't cut a person in half with a single round. He's also wrong about rifling in barrels. It's not put there to make bullets tumble.

What he IS, is fearmongering, and "weapons that are very specifically made to kill people" turns out to mean "assault weapons" and THAT turns out to mean battlefield .22's like my new one. Because when you have a scary name for a class of guns to be banned, the idea becomes to throw as many guns into that class as possible.

Still working on the right flower for mine. Is this one scary?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

" ... a drive-by shooting with a specific target, a male under the age of 18 who was struck by gunfire.


McManus said four people in all were shot: a 5-year-old boy, a 16-year-old boy, a 60-year-old woman and another juvenile of unknown age.
..."

@Olsonist , @Not for nothing @Ishmael @Keith

criminals killing each other

?? is this a bad thing ??

Your question looks a bit different when the next line from the article is included.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

I saw that, Tom, and I have mentioned before that criminals are notorious for spraying a LOT of rounds when they are shooting each other, and "civilians" are completely unimportant to criminals.

That's not how a ban on sales and transfer works

You had to BUY that from a FFL.
FFL had to "transfer" to you on 4473.

If you or I lied on that 4473 we would be doing 10 years in club fed.

What is 'fully semi automatic'?

"Military grade"
Yours even has TWO pistol grips, which makes it twice as evil.

The violence from the stupid drug war spills over to innocent bystanders, as it did in this case

Yes, mentioned above the criminals simply don't care.

I'm not certified but I have seen what a .223 can do and he's wrong. It can't cut a person in half with a single round. He's also wrong about rifling in barrels. It's not put there to make bullets tumble.

HERESY!!
You actually CONTRADICTED the President !!!

, funny,
I have been asking team grabbers about that,
( and about those high caliber 9mm blowing a lung clear out )

, but grabbers never answer,

Still working on the right flower for mine. Is this one scary?

I think I prefer the purple one.

 

[Ishmael]

 

[Steam Flyer]

When the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer became quite obvious, the gov't not only put more restrictions on sales of cigarettes but also banned their advertising on TV and some other media.

When the link between DDT and plummeting bird populations was proven, and crop pollination started becoming a problem, the gov't banned DDT.

The government has taken countless steps for the good of the general population. But guns, no.

 

[Ishmael]

When the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer became quite obvious, the gov't not only put more restrictions on sales of cigarettes but also banned their advertising on TV and some other media.

When the link between DDT and plummeting bird populations was proven, and crop pollination started becoming a problem, the gov't banned DDT.

The government has taken countless steps for the good of the general population. But guns, no.

Remember how many people used to screech about tyranny when seat belts became law? Now most people wear them without a thought.

 

[Liquid]

You had to BUY that from a FFL.
FFL had to "transfer" to you on 4473.

If you or I lied on that 4473 we would be doing 10 years in club fed.

Whaaa?

I'm not sure what you're on about there...

A ban on assault weapons sales and transfers means NO future sales or transfers of as defined assault weapons. I can still keep and shoot my AR-15 after the ban (which I'm turning into a DMR - Dedicated Marksmen Rifle).

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Yours even has TWO pistol grips, which makes it twice as evil.

Liquid seems stuck on the fact that some registration schemes allow owners to keep our nuisance property. Yeah, and others don't. For examples, the registration schemes in New Jersey and California require owners to surrender their property or get it out of the state, which is why badlat claimed to have moved his assault weapon to another state.

A ban on assault weapons sales and transfers means NO future sales or transfers of as defined assault weapons. I can still keep and shoot my AR-15 after the ban (which I'm turning into a DMR - Dedicated Marksmen Rifle).

Uh huh. And your kids? I have in mind handing down my battlefield .22 to my grandson, but FL grabbers have another idea in mind. Similarly, if Billy Backstay wanted to hand down his scary Mini 14, 20 round magazine and all, he would be out of luck.

Being able to keep your gun temporarily, through the grace of grabbers, until they take it when you die, is not the same as simply being able to keep your gun. The end result, and obvious objective, of such schemes was seen in DC before Heller. There WERE a few legal handguns in DC, just because the owners hadn't died yet.

This kind of confiscation program is more insidious to me. If people like Liquid really believe that the next generation shouldn't have guns, they should give them up too. But they won't.

Yes, mentioned above the criminals simply don't care.

Just because criminals and a disturbing number of voters don't care about the violence that accompanies the stupid drug war does not mean we should not care.

 

[Keith]

 

[Voyageur]

maybe we could start by requiring all semi autos and their magazines be painted with the images of slaughtered school children. ammo boxes should have the same images.

 

[Ishmael]

maybe we could start by requiring all semi autos and their magazines be painted with the images of slaughtered school children. ammo boxes should have the same images.

That would just encourage them.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION SUES WASHINGTON OVER SEMI-AUTO BAN



Oddly, the Washington ban, like the California one, exempts rimfire guns.

I think the Judge has been listening to Bloomberg-$pon$ored Marine Colonel "experts" or something.

Here's what he said in denying a preliminary injunction.

Semiautomatic assault weapons represent a significant technological change – they allow a shooter to fire as fast as they can pull the trigger, unlike previous guns. While semiautomatic weapons like the AR-15 were invented in the 1950s, the growth in ownership of semiautomatic assault weapons proliferated in the late 2000s.

It's becoming more and more obvious that facts matter not at all to TeamD/grabby types. There's one rule on the endless one-way ratchet here: any time anyone says something more grabby than the last person, that becomes the new party line.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Just because criminals and a disturbing number of voters don't care about the violence that accompanies the stupid drug war does not mean we should not care.

Don't think for even a moment that I don't care.

, to paraphrase a bit,

It's becoming more and more obvious that that the violence is very benificial to TeamD/grabby types as bloody theatrical props for yet another round of virtueous crying.

---------------------

,, on the denial of that preliminary injunction ,,

I'm thinking the plaintifs were pretty well expecting that kind of result from this judge.

This will kick it up to Bruen to smack down several other states bans at the same time.


-----------------------------


, and a bit of a mind shift for me in that I used to think of the M1 Garand as "a 60 year old semiautomac weapon" and the AR platform as "the new kid" .

 

[d'ranger]

And our resident gun nut blames the D team. What a surprise (purple).

 

[Steam Flyer]

Don't think for even a moment that I don't care.

, to paraphrase a bit,

It's becoming more and more obvious that that the violence is very benificial to TeamD/grabby types as bloody theatrical props for yet another round of virtueous crying.

---------------------

,, on the denial of that preliminary injunction ,,

I'm thinking the plaintifs were pretty well expecting that kind of result from this judge.

This will kick it up to Bruen to smack down several other states bans at the same time.


-----------------------------


, and a bit of a mind shift for me in that I used to think of the M1 Garand as "a 60 year old semiautomac weapon" and the AR platform as "the new kid" .

Which would you prefer:

Gun violence in the USA to decline substantially, especially school shootings

or

Beat Team D and own tha libs!

 

[badlatitude]

Found on the net, and I agree with this.

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and still own guns. In the ’70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they became more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and possess a gun, no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in children's hands, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think should be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language; I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone possessing a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be relevant to require that the examination be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, but to check on your superficial and apparent gunworthiness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under the direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children, criminals, or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some different age, OK. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely, you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) outside the home. Guns should be secure when transported to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you carry your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) Your license information should be recorded if you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

,, on the denial of that preliminary injunction ,,

I'm thinking the plaintifs were pretty well expecting that kind of result from this judge.

Perhaps. The judge did come pretty close to admitting that the goal here is to ban anything semiauto from non-government hands.