Unless we can all have our mini-nukes no one is truly free.
Massachusetts Effectively Bans All Semi-Auto Weapons
@mark1974 said:
@Riverwolf007 said:
One day we will get enough laws passed to make every place in america as safe as chicago.
You know nothing of Chicago, you are just repeating right wing talking points. I live there, the crime is isolated to segregated communities. I can assure you the white blond haired yuppy women I see pushing strollers everyday are not in danger.
You missed his point by miles. Explain how gun control measures like the recent one in MA would help desegregate communities in Chicago. If anything gun control impact poor communities negatively more than they do white/rich communities. Without the benefit of alarms or private security guards, often the ONLY mean of protection for people in impoverished neighborhoods is arming themselves.
@mark1974 said:
@Riverwolf007 said:
One day we will get enough laws passed to make every place in america as safe as chicago.
You know nothing of Chicago, you are just repeating right wing talking points. I live there, the crime is isolated to segregated communities. I can assure you the white blond haired yuppy women I see pushing strollers everyday are not in danger.
If the right wing talking points are wrong, wouldn't that mean shootings, murder, crime, etc.., are not problems in Chicago?
@bmanva: you are missing my point. The problems in Chicago have nothing to do with gun laws. And even though everyone in Chicago lives under the same laws there are two very different realities. You can't just say chicago is dangerous. It is isolated pockets that are dangerous and the rest is relatively safe.
@mark1974 said:
@bmanva: you are missing my point. The problems in Chicago have nothing to do with gun laws. And even though everyone in Chicago lives under the same laws there are two very different realities. You can't just say chicago is dangerous. It is isolated pockets that are dangerous and the rest is relatively safe.
So you are essentially agreeing with the poster you quoted? You realize that Chicago's tough gun law was intended address the "problems in Chicago", but it continues to experience high rate of gun violence even after that law was put in place? Both of you are arguing against the effectiveness of such gun control measure.
All semi-autos or just assault rifles?
@mark1974 said:
@bmanva: you assumed I was for gun control. I am not. I am against Chicago being used as a right wing talking point by people who understand nothing about the place and its problems or lack there of.
I didn't assume anything. And no one is claiming they understand the place or its problem. Most of the mention is isolated to the fact that Chicago strict gun law has been ineffective at reducing violent crimes.
@bmanva said:
@xantufrog said:
That's an issue I always struggle with when these debates come up. I'm not going to touch the immediate issue at hand, but I do feel like the utility of gun ownership to protect against tyranny from the govt ended LONG ago. At this point, the right to bear arms seems, in truth, nothing more than a luxury; @bmanva basically hit this point above, although from an anti-gun control perspective and maybe unintentionally: they are almost a luxury, either for decoration, to support a hobby (like hunting or simply marksmanship for its own sake), or for illegally killing others. The idea that they protect us from the govt in this era is antiquated and grounded in delusion. Can one man with an AR-15 kill a bunch of cops or even troops who try to "oppress" him? Sure. What about a posse with AR-15s? Sure. But if the govt wanted to kill you and your mob they can kill you... and your shiny deathbringers are not going to stop them.
Irony is that the mentality that bearing arms is no longer necessary is the real luxury here. If you came up in a safe and protected environment, then of course you are going to question the necessity of weapons or even violence in today's world. But fact is, human nature is unchanging, the civility you know and grew up in is a frail facade maintained by violence or threat of violence. People like you are like the Elois unaware of the brutal reality that sustain your sheltered existence.
I don't know how much real world experience you have in fighting wars or governing, not any from the sound of it. But I want to address couple of misconceptions you have stated. Effectiveness of second amendment in warding off tyranny doesn't actually derive from practical deployment of arms but how it empowers the individual and reinforce a sense of independence. This is why in a later post, I discussed the association with the unique American cultural identity and our emphasis on individualism and independence from the government (where as civilian bodies of most other countries tend to have an implicit trust in their governmental structures). Although admittedly I don't actually know whether our gun culture is natural result of that or it supports that sense as I've claim earlier. As Sun Tzu (I suppose you are going to tell me that's an "antiquated" example?) have stated wars are won and lost in the heart not the battlefield. As I stated before arms are representation of power. There's a very good reason that a commonality among oppressive regime is strict control of arms among their respective populace. It robs them both the means and the WILL to fight. And ruling bodies ALWAYS had the capability to kill any individual or group of individuals among their subjects. Not sure why you believe this is something new. Revolutionary war were initially fought between an professional army with almost limitless resources and colonial militias who were no more than armed farmers. No doubt most people of the era gave no more chance to the American colonists than you gave to a hypothetical civilian uprising today. And such examples of successful insurgency extends well into the modern ages.
Firstly, to be forthcoming - no, I do not work in law enforcement and I have never served in the military. That being said, my father was a Rifle Expert in the Marines, and several of my best friends recently served combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not one of them shares your world view. By contrast, I have a number of civilian friends who do. So don't try and pass off your views as something where yours are inherently better than mine because "you have to have shot someone to know the truths".
I thought about writing a longer response, but the reality is you are disrespectful and disdainful of my opposing view, all while foisting views from others in this thread on me that I did not express to discredit me further.
We're both just sharing opinions and views, not facts of how things work. I'm not going to change your mind, so why bother? I'm not going to sit here and be called a pampered, ignorant fool when all you have to offer is differing philosophies. You know nothing about how things would go down tomorrow if the US Govt decided to forcefully oppress us. What are they forcefully oppressing upon us? Will all your militia side against them? It's all just speculation.
@Bigboi500 said:
Non-military and non-police shouldn't have handguns and auto/semi automatic weapons, period. The only thing civilians in the US should have access to are bolt action hunting rifles and long barreled shotguns for hunting purposes.
Never going to happen since SCOTUS already ruled against your position. You should move to Russia or North Korea though, they have strict gun control law along the line of your suggestion.
A shotgun? Your basic $200 Mossberg could mow down people in ways the average anti-firearm person could never imagine. There are reasons why a shotgun is sometimes referred to as a scattergun.
@Byshop said:
@sSubZerOo said:
@Byshop said:
Actually from your own source it sounds more like they are closing loopholes that allowed manufacturers to skirt the existing law rather than "redefining what an assault rifle means".
-Byshop
Regardless of what it may mean, it is a extremely silly law when the vast majority of gun violence comes from handguns.. Of all the mass shootings (there aren't many) since 1982, only a small handful involved the use of a assault rifle, handguns dominate that figure as well.... I don't particularly like the NRA and much of the gun culture in the United States, but I can at least see that this thing has basically turned into a point scoring competition over anything else.. It is a meaningless ban... It is there simply so politicians can say "See what we did, we did something!" while ignoring the actual really tough problems that both sides have been ignoring for decades for a multitude of reasons.
And whether or not it makes sense to ban assault rifles at all bears discussion. I don't have a problem with it. I have a fair number of guns in my collection, but I don't have any practical need for a semi or full auto rifle with a clip. The general consensus among hunters is that hunting with weapons like this is like fishing with dynamite (i.e. overkill). Assault rifles are (specifically be design) more deadly. Accurate at greater range, higher rates of fire, larger ammo, etc. The idea that you can still kill people with smaller weapons doesn't disqualify an AR ban as potentially being a good idea because even if this results in fewer deaths then it's a win. There's pretty much nothing that gets regulated that eliminates all death, but less is a good thing.
-Byshop
... Automatic weapons are already illegal to own.. And the most popular "assault rifle", the AR15, isn't a high powered rifle.. If anything they are lucky he used that and not a multitude of pistols or shotgun in a crowded club with Orlando, because he may have killed far more people.... BUT IT ISN'T.. The number one cause of deaths by GUNS have been hand guns.. Mass Shootings are dominated by pistols, very few assault weapons are used.. Do tell me what a desert eagle was designed for? Or a glock.. Because it sure as hell wasn't designed for hunting.. To suggest that "assault style" weapons are some how specifically designed to kill while others aren't is ridiculous assertion.. Furthermore if you look at the actual stats, hand guns are the most used weapon and cause the most deaths by far compared to assault rifles.. Most shootings are done in close range, where a semi automatic AR 15 isn't as effective compared to a shot gun or a hand gun..
@bmanva said:
@Bigboi500 said:
Non-military and non-police shouldn't have handguns and auto/semi automatic weapons, period. The only thing civilians in the US should have access to are bolt action hunting rifles and long barreled shotguns for hunting purposes.
Never going to happen since SCOTUS already ruled against your position. You should move to Russia or North Korea though, they have strict gun control law along the line of your suggestion.
Too many "v"s and "z"s in Russian language to deal with. And they eat pets in North Korea, so that's a big ole no as well. :(
@xantufrog said:
@bmanva said:
@xantufrog said:
That's an issue I always struggle with when these debates come up. I'm not going to touch the immediate issue at hand, but I do feel like the utility of gun ownership to protect against tyranny from the govt ended LONG ago. At this point, the right to bear arms seems, in truth, nothing more than a luxury; @bmanva basically hit this point above, although from an anti-gun control perspective and maybe unintentionally: they are almost a luxury, either for decoration, to support a hobby (like hunting or simply marksmanship for its own sake), or for illegally killing others. The idea that they protect us from the govt in this era is antiquated and grounded in delusion. Can one man with an AR-15 kill a bunch of cops or even troops who try to "oppress" him? Sure. What about a posse with AR-15s? Sure. But if the govt wanted to kill you and your mob they can kill you... and your shiny deathbringers are not going to stop them.
Irony is that the mentality that bearing arms is no longer necessary is the real luxury here. If you came up in a safe and protected environment, then of course you are going to question the necessity of weapons or even violence in today's world. But fact is, human nature is unchanging, the civility you know and grew up in is a frail facade maintained by violence or threat of violence. People like you are like the Elois unaware of the brutal reality that sustain your sheltered existence.
I don't know how much real world experience you have in fighting wars or governing, not any from the sound of it. But I want to address couple of misconceptions you have stated. Effectiveness of second amendment in warding off tyranny doesn't actually derive from practical deployment of arms but how it empowers the individual and reinforce a sense of independence. This is why in a later post, I discussed the association with the unique American cultural identity and our emphasis on individualism and independence from the government (where as civilian bodies of most other countries tend to have an implicit trust in their governmental structures). Although admittedly I don't actually know whether our gun culture is natural result of that or it supports that sense as I've claim earlier. As Sun Tzu (I suppose you are going to tell me that's an "antiquated" example?) have stated wars are won and lost in the heart not the battlefield. As I stated before arms are representation of power. There's a very good reason that a commonality among oppressive regime is strict control of arms among their respective populace. It robs them both the means and the WILL to fight. And ruling bodies ALWAYS had the capability to kill any individual or group of individuals among their subjects. Not sure why you believe this is something new. Revolutionary war were initially fought between an professional army with almost limitless resources and colonial militias who were no more than armed farmers. No doubt most people of the era gave no more chance to the American colonists than you gave to a hypothetical civilian uprising today. And such examples of successful insurgency extends well into the modern ages.
Firstly, to be forthcoming - no, I do not work in law enforcement and I have never served in the military. That being said, my father was a Rifle Expert in the Marines, and several of my best friends recently served combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not one of them shares your world view. By contrast, I have a number of civilian friends who do. So don't try and pass off your views as something where yours are inherently better than mine because "you have to have shot someone to know the truths".
I thought about writing a longer response, but the reality is you are disrespectful and disdainful of my opposing view, all while foisting views from others in this thread on me that I did not express to discredit me further.
We're both just sharing opinions and views, not facts of how things work. I'm not going to change your mind, so why bother? I'm not going to sit here and be called a pampered, ignorant fool when all you have to offer is differing philosophies. You know nothing about how things would go down tomorrow if the US Govt decided to forcefully oppress us. What are they forcefully oppressing upon us? Will all your militia side against them? It's all just speculation.
Then have those people come in and I will have a better discussion with them over the merits of our each respective positions but at least with those individuals we will have a common ground/experience to start off. I would rather not get into a contest of who-knows- more-veterans-who-support-each-other's respective opinions since I think both you and I know I will win that battle. However, none of that changes the fact that your perspective isn't one based on those experiences firsthand nor political views of your scarce contacts representative of majority of veteran community (vast majority of whom are gun owners).
It's your reality that I was disrespectful and disdainful, not mine. Sure, I made some assumptions and propositions of your background (you do understand the hypothetical intent of the word "IF" right?), but considering I wasn't wrong, I don't see that supports your accusation. Perhaps you just have too much respect and admiration for your own opinion that anyone who questions the validity of it is insulting in your viewpoint? You don't see me bringing the issue of respect when the conversations turn against my position.
I shared facts as I experienced them, where are you getting your facts from? Second hand from your "combat veteran besties"? History of the world isn't speculation. Again governing bodies of different nations of different time period always had power of life and death over the populace they preside over and there have been many examples of successful civilian insurgency throughout (such as the one that started this country). Quite a few of them in modern era. Even in the last few decades, western military, despite all their high tech weaponry and expertly trained professionals were repeatedly bested by undertrained civilians in basic gears and small arms. Those are the facts, and clearly contradictory to your claim that armed civilians uprising is a thing of the distant past.
@Byshop said:
@sSubZerOo said:
@Byshop said:
Actually from your own source it sounds more like they are closing loopholes that allowed manufacturers to skirt the existing law rather than "redefining what an assault rifle means".
-Byshop
Regardless of what it may mean, it is a extremely silly law when the vast majority of gun violence comes from handguns.. Of all the mass shootings (there aren't many) since 1982, only a small handful involved the use of a assault rifle, handguns dominate that figure as well.... I don't particularly like the NRA and much of the gun culture in the United States, but I can at least see that this thing has basically turned into a point scoring competition over anything else.. It is a meaningless ban... It is there simply so politicians can say "See what we did, we did something!" while ignoring the actual really tough problems that both sides have been ignoring for decades for a multitude of reasons.
And whether or not it makes sense to ban assault rifles at all bears discussion. I don't have a problem with it. I have a fair number of guns in my collection, but I don't have any practical need for a semi or full auto rifle with a clip. The general consensus among hunters is that hunting with weapons like this is like fishing with dynamite (i.e. overkill). Assault rifles are (specifically be design) more deadly. Accurate at greater range, higher rates of fire, larger ammo, etc. The idea that you can still kill people with smaller weapons doesn't disqualify an AR ban as potentially being a good idea because even if this results in fewer deaths then it's a win. There's pretty much nothing that gets regulated that eliminates all death, but less is a good thing.
-Byshop
"I play a fair number of games, but I don't have any practical need for any games. The idea that there are some mass killers who don't play violent games doesn't disqualify a violent game ban as potentially being a good idea because even if this results in fewer deaths then it's a win. There's pretty much nothing that gets regulated that eliminates all death, but less is a good thing."
"I consume a fair amount of alcohol, but I don't have any practical need for any alcohol. The idea that there are non-alcohol related death doesn't disqualify an alcohol ban as potentially being a good idea because even if this results in fewer deaths then it's a win. There's pretty much nothing that gets regulated that eliminates all death, but less is a good thing."
"I own a car, but I don't have any practical need for car that can go over the speed limit. The idea that there are non-speed related death doesn't disqualify a performance car ban as potentially being a good idea because even if this results in fewer deaths then it's a win. There's pretty much nothing that gets regulated that eliminates all death, but less is a good thing."
I can go on but you get the idea.
@Solaryellow said:
A shotgun? Your basic $200 Mossberg could mow down people in ways the average anti-firearm person could never imagine. There are reasons why a shotgun is sometimes referred to as a scattergun.
I wouldn't bother going down that road. The type of gun doesn't matter. Gun control advocates know but do not care that assault weapon bans are ineffective at reducing gun violence. They only care that it's a step toward eventual restriction of all guns, because the next time there's a mass shooting, the discussion will be banning of another type of guns that the last ban missed.
@sSubZerOo said:
.. Incredibly silly.. The AR15 makes up a very small % of shooting deaths in the United States, handguns are the main culprits of deaths (both intentional and accidental).. To me this feels like a knee jerk reaction to mass shootings that are so rare, that you have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning a few times over than getting shot by a mass shooter..
If they want to end violence, stop the war on drugs.. End the jail for profit industry.. Make prison more about rehabilitation than punishment.. End the revolving door of felons, by creating work programs in which they can actually get a job when they get out.. Actually focus on the mental health problem through out the United States that is swept under the carpet except when it is used as a scape goat.. Gun deaths for instance are dwarfed by the suicide rate by a significant margin every year, even when you take gun related suicides out of the mix.. Revamp public services in poorer areas in which things like schools get the proper funding they need.... The US houses more inmates than China for crying out loud.. This kind of ban isn't going to do anything outside of political posturing on both sides.. And that is because neither side has any desire in actually focusing on the things I mentioned..
The Right wing makes boogiemen out of "big bad government" (in which their side has been pushing some of the most oppressive ideals justified by religious doctrine), while the Left makes boogiemen out of guns (while completely ignoring the far far higher things that claim more lives in the country by a wide margin).. They won't talk about these things I mentioned because they are bad for business.. Both sides get kick backs from the prison industry.. Both sides have put forward and support the industry whether it's from the Republican created War on Drugs or the Democrat created three strikes policy.. If anything the gun industry is applauding this move by Massachusetts because it is only going to create more hysteria in which people buy more guns.. While solving absolutely nothing for actual violent crimes on the other side..
The Gun industry couldn't have asked for a better president than President Obama, due to baseless fearmongering their gun sales have skyrocketed.
Hear! Hear!
@Solaryellow said:
@Byshop said:
No rights within the country are completely unlimited. I need a car to get to work, but that doesn't make a Formula 500 car a street legal option for my commute. I have to choose from the wide, wide variety of vehicles that are considered safe to use on public roads.
Would it be too much to ask of you to list an actual right?
First amendment.. Death threats are against the law.. So are calls of action like screaming fire in a theater...
@bmanva said:
@Solaryellow said:
A shotgun? Your basic $200 Mossberg could mow down people in ways the average anti-firearm person could never imagine. There are reasons why a shotgun is sometimes referred to as a scattergun.
I wouldn't bother going down that road. The type of gun doesn't matter. Gun control advocates know but do not care that assault weapon bans are ineffective at reducing gun violence. They only care that it's a step toward eventual restriction of all guns, because the next time there's a mass shooting, the discussion will be banning of another type of guns that the last ban missed.
You said something earlier about conjecture and paranoia?
Yeah, I think I get where you're coming from now.
-Byshop
@sSubZerOo said:
@Solaryellow said:
@Byshop said:
No rights within the country are completely unlimited. I need a car to get to work, but that doesn't make a Formula 500 car a street legal option for my commute. I have to choose from the wide, wide variety of vehicles that are considered safe to use on public roads.
Would it be too much to ask of you to list an actual right?
First amendment.. Death threats are against the law.. So are calls of action like screaming fire in a theater...
Follow the discussion. He, Byshop, mentioned rights not being unlimited yet used an example of a privilege.
@Solaryellow said:
@sSubZerOo said:
@Solaryellow said:
@Byshop said:
No rights within the country are completely unlimited. I need a car to get to work, but that doesn't make a Formula 500 car a street legal option for my commute. I have to choose from the wide, wide variety of vehicles that are considered safe to use on public roads.
Would it be too much to ask of you to list an actual right?
First amendment.. Death threats are against the law.. So are calls of action like screaming fire in a theater...
Follow the discussion. He, Byshop, mentioned rights not being unlimited yet used an example of a privilege.
I just listed a actual right with a limit.. Follow the discussion?
@Byshop said:
@bmanva said:
@Solaryellow said:
A shotgun? Your basic $200 Mossberg could mow down people in ways the average anti-firearm person could never imagine. There are reasons why a shotgun is sometimes referred to as a scattergun.
I wouldn't bother going down that road. The type of gun doesn't matter. Gun control advocates know but do not care that assault weapon bans are ineffective at reducing gun violence. They only care that it's a step toward eventual restriction of all guns, because the next time there's a mass shooting, the discussion will be banning of another type of guns that the last ban missed.
You said something earlier about conjecture and paranoia?
Yeah, I think I get where you're coming from now.
-Byshop
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Biden-Gun-Control-Sandy-Hook-Fundraiser/2016/06/16/id/734187/
"There's no reason we should ever stop," he said about supporting gun control.
Considering it's coming out of the VP's mouth, I wouldn't call it conjecture or paranoia.
@topgunmv said:
@Byshop said:
@bmanva said:
@Solaryellow said:
A shotgun? Your basic $200 Mossberg could mow down people in ways the average anti-firearm person could never imagine. There are reasons why a shotgun is sometimes referred to as a scattergun.
I wouldn't bother going down that road. The type of gun doesn't matter. Gun control advocates know but do not care that assault weapon bans are ineffective at reducing gun violence. They only care that it's a step toward eventual restriction of all guns, because the next time there's a mass shooting, the discussion will be banning of another type of guns that the last ban missed.
You said something earlier about conjecture and paranoia?
Yeah, I think I get where you're coming from now.
-Byshop
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Biden-Gun-Control-Sandy-Hook-Fundraiser/2016/06/16/id/734187/
"There's no reason we should ever stop," he said about supporting gun control.
Considering it's coming out of the VP's mouth, I wouldn't call it conjecture or paranoia.
And in your mind those words somehow mean "We are going to ban all guns"?
-Byshop
@Byshop said:
@topgunmv said:
@Byshop said:
@bmanva said:
@Solaryellow said:
A shotgun? Your basic $200 Mossberg could mow down people in ways the average anti-firearm person could never imagine. There are reasons why a shotgun is sometimes referred to as a scattergun.
I wouldn't bother going down that road. The type of gun doesn't matter. Gun control advocates know but do not care that assault weapon bans are ineffective at reducing gun violence. They only care that it's a step toward eventual restriction of all guns, because the next time there's a mass shooting, the discussion will be banning of another type of guns that the last ban missed.
You said something earlier about conjecture and paranoia?
Yeah, I think I get where you're coming from now.
-Byshop
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Biden-Gun-Control-Sandy-Hook-Fundraiser/2016/06/16/id/734187/
"There's no reason we should ever stop," he said about supporting gun control.
Considering it's coming out of the VP's mouth, I wouldn't call it conjecture or paranoia.
And in your mind those words somehow mean "We are going to ban all guns"?
-Byshop
It's left to interpretation but I'd go with yes.
@n64dd said:
@Byshop said:
@topgunmv said:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Biden-Gun-Control-Sandy-Hook-Fundraiser/2016/06/16/id/734187/
"There's no reason we should ever stop," he said about supporting gun control.
Considering it's coming out of the VP's mouth, I wouldn't call it conjecture or paranoia.
And in your mind those words somehow mean "We are going to ban all guns"?
-Byshop
It's left to interpretation but I'd go with yes.
Was this before or after he confirmed Half Life 3?
-Byshop
@Byshop said:
@n64dd said:
@Byshop said:
@topgunmv said:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Biden-Gun-Control-Sandy-Hook-Fundraiser/2016/06/16/id/734187/
"There's no reason we should ever stop," he said about supporting gun control.
Considering it's coming out of the VP's mouth, I wouldn't call it conjecture or paranoia.
And in your mind those words somehow mean "We are going to ban all guns"?
-Byshop
It's left to interpretation but I'd go with yes.
Was this before or after he confirmed Half Life 3?
-Byshop
LOL touche. It's Biden though. I don't really take what he says seriously.
@bmanva said:
@Flubbbs said:
Since when can the MA attorney general rewrite laws?
As the article states, AG does have the authority to define qualification for "assault weapons".
The US has huge problems with gun violence, where would you start?
@sSubZerOo said:
@Solaryellow said:
@sSubZerOo said:
@Solaryellow said:
Would it be too much to ask of you to list an actual right?
First amendment.. Death threats are against the law.. So are calls of action like screaming fire in a theater...
Follow the discussion. He, Byshop, mentioned rights not being unlimited yet used an example of a privilege.
I just listed a actual right with a limit.. Follow the discussion?
Listing a right with a limit is not germane in the slightest unless you are Byshop. He mentioned driving which, as you know, is not a right. I'd like him to answer with the proper response.
@THUMPTABLE said:
@bmanva said:
@Flubbbs said:
Since when can the MA attorney general rewrite laws?
As the article states, AG does have the authority to define qualification for "assault weapons".
The US has huge problems with gun violence, where would you start?
I dont know if banning assault weapons would do much to change that. Most gun deaths in the US are not from that. There was an assault ban during the clinton years but it didnt do much to change the number of mass shootings, deaths, etc. Maybe some other form of regulation?
About time.. bann all the guns too, small guns, big guns, nobody needs them.. only the police can have em.
@Byshop said:
@bmanva said:
@Solaryellow said:
A shotgun? Your basic $200 Mossberg could mow down people in ways the average anti-firearm person could never imagine. There are reasons why a shotgun is sometimes referred to as a scattergun.
I wouldn't bother going down that road. The type of gun doesn't matter. Gun control advocates know but do not care that assault weapon bans are ineffective at reducing gun violence. They only care that it's a step toward eventual restriction of all guns, because the next time there's a mass shooting, the discussion will be banning of another type of guns that the last ban missed.
You said something earlier about conjecture and paranoia?
Yeah, I think I get where you're coming from now.
-Byshop
Right, because since passing the National Firearm Act of 1934 to restrict the manufacture and sales of machine guns and various NFA firearms, politicians never again tried to limit people's second amendment right. Oh wait, there's Federal Firearms Act of 1938 several years later, placing further restriction on transfer of guns. That's it then? No more blaming guns? Not quite, there's Gun Control Act of 1968. Are we done? Not even close, there's Firearms Owners Protection Acts which effectively banned automatic firearms. Then UFA of 1988, then Gun Free Zone of 1990, then Brady's Act in '93, and then Federal AWB in '94. But that's it right? Mission accomplished? "Assault weapons" banned after all. Not if the left can help it, right after Columbine some 800 gun legislation bills were submitted, majority of them for further gun control. Those I listed are just the Federal level gun laws, each state and locality had their own version of gun control, some stricter than the Federal level, like DC's FCRA which banned handguns and semi-auto weapons for all residents until the landmark SCOTUS case overturned it some 30 years later. Surely you came across all of this in your "thorough and impartial fact finding"?
Paranoia is based on unreasonable fear, like being scared that your neighbor with his "evil looking" AR15 will come over and massacre you and your family on a bad day when statistically speaking you are several hundred times more likely to kill yourself in a car accident. Gun control, on the other hand, has a long and well established pattern of exploiting gun related tragedies to chip away at people's gun right. If you honestly think that even after an "assault weapons ban" successfully passes that gun control advocates would cease their effort in limiting our 2nd amendment right when the next mass shooting takes place, then you just willfully ignoring the facts.
@Byshop said:
@topgunmv said:
@Byshop said:
@bmanva said:
@Solaryellow said:
A shotgun? Your basic $200 Mossberg could mow down people in ways the average anti-firearm person could never imagine. There are reasons why a shotgun is sometimes referred to as a scattergun.
I wouldn't bother going down that road. The type of gun doesn't matter. Gun control advocates know but do not care that assault weapon bans are ineffective at reducing gun violence. They only care that it's a step toward eventual restriction of all guns, because the next time there's a mass shooting, the discussion will be banning of another type of guns that the last ban missed.
You said something earlier about conjecture and paranoia?
Yeah, I think I get where you're coming from now.
-Byshop
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Biden-Gun-Control-Sandy-Hook-Fundraiser/2016/06/16/id/734187/
"There's no reason we should ever stop," he said about supporting gun control.
Considering it's coming out of the VP's mouth, I wouldn't call it conjecture or paranoia.
And in your mind those words somehow mean "We are going to ban all guns"?
-Byshop
That's more than a little disingenuous. You know full well that no president or elected official would come out against a constitutionally protected right explicitly.
Oops there I go assuming again. My bad, maybe you are that dense and thought that Republicans WERE trying to stop voter fraud in introducing mandatory voter ID laws and not block the black and Latinos from voting... You tell me.
@THUMPTABLE said:
@bmanva said:
@Flubbbs said:
Since when can the MA attorney general rewrite laws?
As the article states, AG does have the authority to define qualification for "assault weapons".
The US has huge problems with gun violence, where would you start?
US has huge problems with drugs, mental health, crimes, poverty and education. Gun violence is simply a symptomatic result of those issues. Good indication of that is the lack of correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crimes; the stronger correlation is between poverty, drugs, and under funded education. You start by addressing those if you want to resolve the issue of gun violence.
As for any "assault weapons ban", as DOJ's own study have found:
In general we found, really, very, very little evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect.
You can read the whole thing yourself here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
As we have seen with firearms, in many of the liberal states the politicians have taken baby steps rather than one full on attempt. Some of these states have criminalized previously law abiding firearm owners with the stroke of a pen rather than criminal actions of the owner. Politicians start with baby steps so people (as evidenced in this discussion) won't take notice. The entire dialogue seems to be masterminded by those w/o any knowledge on the matter. These people focus on a firearm causing a minimal amount of carnage compared to other firearms. Apparently the only deadly firearms out there are ones looking like they came out of G.I. Joe. I guess the old saying is true. It isn't a lie if YOU believe it.
US is a mess. No freedom of expression and politicians vying to take more.
@Solaryellow said:
As we have seen with firearms, in many of the liberal states the politicians have taken baby steps rather than one full on attempt. Some of these states have criminalized previously law abiding firearm owners with the stroke of a pen rather than criminal actions of the owner. Politicians start with baby steps so people (as evidenced in this discussion) won't take notice. The entire dialogue seems to be masterminded by those w/o any knowledge on the matter. These people focus on a firearm causing a minimal amount of carnage compared to other firearms. Apparently the only deadly firearms out there are ones looking like they came out of G.I. Joe. I guess the old saying is true. It isn't a lie if YOU believe it.
How else would you cook a frog?
@bmanva said:
That's more than a little disingenuous. You know full well that no president or elected official would come out against a constitutionally protected right explicitly.
Oops there I go assuming again. My bad, maybe you are that dense and thought that Republicans WERE trying to stop voter fraud in introducing mandatory voter ID laws and not block the black and Latinos from voting... You tell me.
Take it down a notch. You're allowed to express your opinion but insults are not allowed.
-Byshop
@mark1974 said:
@bmanva: you are missing my point. The problems in Chicago have nothing to do with gun laws. And even though everyone in Chicago lives under the same laws there are two very different realities. You can't just say chicago is dangerous. It is isolated pockets that are dangerous and the rest is relatively safe.
Isn't that profiling?
@sonicare said:
@mark1974 said:
@bmanva: you are missing my point. The problems in Chicago have nothing to do with gun laws. And even though everyone in Chicago lives under the same laws there are two very different realities. You can't just say chicago is dangerous. It is isolated pockets that are dangerous and the rest is relatively safe.
Isn't that profiling?
Blacks do get profiled in Chicago and it's wrong since the vast majority of them are not violent. Just because the violence happens in black neighborhoods you should not think that any more than a fraction of a percent of them are responsible for the violence. Do you have a larger point?
@Byshop said:
@bmanva said:
That's more than a little disingenuous. You know full well that no president or elected official would come out against a constitutionally protected right explicitly.
Oops there I go assuming again. My bad, maybe you are that dense and thought that Republicans WERE trying to stop voter fraud in introducing mandatory voter ID laws and not block the black and Latinos from voting... You tell me.
Take it down a notch. You're allowed to express your opinion but insults are not allowed.
-Byshop
And there it is. Was wondering when you're going to selectively enforce the rules again to suppress dissenting opinion. I guess this was fine since rules don't apply to mods:
@Byshop said:
You said something earlier about conjecture and paranoia?
Yeah, I think I get where you're coming from now.
-Byshop
Latest update on the MA assault weapons ban: 58 Mass. lawmakers challenge Healey on new ‘assault rifle’ enforcement
Letter Admonishing the MA AG office from MA House and Senate
Here are some highlights from the letter:
"We are particularly concerned that your Enforcement Notice was issued unilaterally, with very little, if any, advance notice for licensed gun dealers and lawful gun owners to adequately prepare for this new interpretation of the 1998 assault weapons law."
"For the last 18 years, the law has been implemented and enforced consistently, both by your office and your predecessors. Your new directive, which has been presented by your office as nothing more than a closing of ‘loopholes’ in the current law, appears in fact to be much more than that: the enforcement of a whole new law that unfairly infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners in Massachusetts."
"An email sent by your office to the Legislature on July 21 - one day after the directive was issued - states that, 'For many years, the gun industry has been marketing and selling what they describe as 'Massachusetts compliant' assault weapons, despite the fact that those guns are actually banned under existing state law.' If, in fact, these guns were actually banned under the 1998 law, then why has there been no prosecutorial action taken by your office or your two predecessors as Attorney General over the last two decades? What, exactly, has changed that led to your determination that these weapons were banned and being sold illegally all these years."
That last one...
@bmanva said:
@Byshop said:
@bmanva said:
That's more than a little disingenuous. You know full well that no president or elected official would come out against a constitutionally protected right explicitly.
Oops there I go assuming again. My bad, maybe you are that dense and thought that Republicans WERE trying to stop voter fraud in introducing mandatory voter ID laws and not block the black and Latinos from voting... You tell me.
Take it down a notch. You're allowed to express your opinion but insults are not allowed.
-Byshop
And there it is. Was wondering when you're going to selectively enforce the rules again to suppress dissenting opinion. I guess this was fine since rules don't apply to mods:
@Byshop said:
You said something earlier about conjecture and paranoia?
Yeah, I think I get where you're coming from now.
-Byshop
If you think me calling your position conjecture and paranoia (literally the same words you used to describe the other side of the argument, BTW) then report it. Calling me (or anyone else) dense is very obviously against the rules. Your opinion is allowed but only if you can manage like everyone else to express it without insulting people who disagree. You've had your warning. Next time it's a strike.
-Byshop
@Byshop said:
@bmanva said:
@Byshop said:
@bmanva said:
That's more than a little disingenuous. You know full well that no president or elected official would come out against a constitutionally protected right explicitly.
Oops there I go assuming again. My bad, maybe you are that dense and thought that Republicans WERE trying to stop voter fraud in introducing mandatory voter ID laws and not block the black and Latinos from voting... You tell me.
Take it down a notch. You're allowed to express your opinion but insults are not allowed.
-Byshop
And there it is. Was wondering when you're going to selectively enforce the rules again to suppress dissenting opinion. I guess this was fine since rules don't apply to mods:
@Byshop said:
You said something earlier about conjecture and paranoia?
Yeah, I think I get where you're coming from now.
-Byshop
If you think me calling your position conjecture and paranoia (literally the same words you used to describe the other side of the argument, BTW) then report it. Calling me (or anyone else) dense is very obviously against the rules. Your opinion is allowed but only if you can manage like everyone else to express it without insulting people who disagree. You've had your warning. Next time it's a strike.
-Byshop
Never claim I wasn't guilty of it. There are plenty of ad hominem (subtle and not so subtle) back and forward in this thread. But yet you only chose to enforce the rules when it's coming out of the opposing side of the argument. If you don't want a perception of bias as your role as a mod then maybe you shouldn't be so vested in a debate?
I apologize if you interpreted what I wrote to be an insult but that wasn't my intention, I thought it was made perfectly clear by the second statement.
Oh dear lord. I came in here to see what the buzz what about. Though I never post in forums, I gotta post here.
Ok, so for years, I was a prosecutor in Massachusetts. I've actually prosecuted people for violating Massachusetts gun laws. I've sent people to jail for same. So let's all take a step back, because this discussion, like pretty much every single solitary one involving guns and gun bans might be all fine and great and groovy when it comes to erudite thoughts about greater rights and our standing up to the man or whatever, but it has no bearing at all in relation to what goes on in the trenches of courtrooms, or what the government is ACTUALLY DOING with these laws.
These things are nice on paper. They get headlines. They make certain people happy when they're passed, they make others happy when they're not, but to a DA, they're what we think of as secondary statutes (I used to call them secondary weapons, but that's SO unseemly......)
Here's what that means.
Unless you are stockpiling illegal guns, or you have links to really, really bad people, you aren't going down for violating a gun ban. You just aren't. You have a better chance of going down for having a joint in your car than having a gun you shouldn't have.
So why have them at all, you say?
Because they give the DA a secondary way to get you if he thinks you have to get got.
Say, for example, the cops pulls someone over and find a gun in the dude's car. They cuff him, seize the gun. Then they proceed to do an illegal search of the car (or a search that gets found to be illegal later, which is oh so very often the case, because of another Amendment you all like so much). In said search, they find 450 pounds of heroin in the trunk. Oopsy daisy. Now we all know the driver is a bad, bad man. But, sadly, the heroin gets excluded because the search was bad. But guess what? The gun doesn't. The gun is a-ok because cops have the right to take things that might cause them to become unsafe. So I, the DA, can sit there and WHALE on the dude for the gun, even though what I'm REALLY whaling on him for is the drugs.
Absent the drugs, two things happen: One: The cops bring this to me and I say "What? Dudes, this is just a guy who didn't do the paperwork, he has no record, please go away" MORE LIKELY: The COP, who is very likely pro-Second Amendment himself, DOESN'T ARREST THE GUY AT ALL, says "Be on your way, don't let me see that again," and life goes on.
These laws, SO VERY MANY CRIMINAL LAWS are so very grey. No blacks, no whites. The criminal justice system is a messy, messy place where 23 year old lawyers trying to make a name make judgment calls all by themselves 30 times a day every day. And no article, no source, no sound bite, no NOTHING is ever really going to capture that.
So the above? That's how it is. Is that liberal? Conservative? Evidence of a government that is using the law to do an end around the Fourth or protecting the Second? Both? Neither? Who knows? I don't, and I got paid to do it.
And I'm glad I don't anymore.
@l34052 said:
Gun control won't solve nothing at all, what's needed is bullet control. Makes bullets $100 a piece and see how many innocent standers there'll be....
Even that won't have any immediate effect but over the longer term it will.
That's even worse than gun control, since bullets can have a wider range of uses (many of them legitimate like hunting, sport and self/home defense) than specific type of guns. Plus taxing bullets at that rate would make it prohibitive for poor people, effectively turning the 2nd amendment right to a privilege only the rich and wealthy can afford. Not to mention, such law would be unenforceable, considering the fact that manufacturing of bullets are so simple that anyone with few hundred dollar worth of equipment can do in their garage or basement.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment