The Firearms Industry Boycott Grows.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by gatorpa

240 years or so, I would not hold your breath

Times change, peoples' attitudes change.

Civil rights took 200 years, but we got there.

Gay rights took a couple of thousand years, be we are getting there.

A rational discussion on guns may in fact take another 20 years, but we are getting there.

Having someone like Mayor Bloomberg out in front of this issue certainly helps.

We'll get there, we'll get there...

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Your implied argument that all lawful owners of military-styled firearms - who have committed no illegal act with said firearms - should be required to give up their right to own them, either out of some kind of transferred guilt about Newtown or because of the false notion that, in doing so, no person will ever be killed by a military-styled firearm in the future, is a stupid one.

Just as we currently prohibit the private ownership of machine guns and atomic bombs, I don't see are reason why we cannot also prohibit the private ownership of assault weapons which truly have no legitimate purpose. One does not need an assault weapon to hunt, nor does one need an assault weapon to defend yourself. I fail to see the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic assault weapons.

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Sorry, but liberty is a value that is more fundamental than the illusion of safety and the expiation of irrational guilt. At least in the opinion of some.

Here we go again with this silly argument.

I reject the premise that one's liberty is somehow inexorably linked with one's ability to own an assault weapon.

We have prohibited the private ownership of machine guns since the 1930's and yet our democracy has endured....

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I reject the premise that one's liberty is somehow inexorably linked with one's ability to own an assault weapon.

Read the constitution.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Read the constitution.

I have, and the funny thing is that it doesn't mention assault weapons...

Since you obviously are the Constitutional scholar here, do you think perhaps that is because in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted the only firearms available were single shot muskets and rifles?

Tell you what, I will go along with that, every American should be able to own a single shot musket or rifle.

Happy now?

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

You need to stop reading and/or listening to wherever you are getting your information, the NRA, Fox News, some gun freak website, etc. The truth is every one of those kids died as a result of a bullet from an assault weapon.

Mea culpa. Either way, the choice of weapon was really an irrelevant factor in the number killed in Newtown. All the victims were unarmed and he was not in any kind of hurry. He could have gotten the exact same results with a break action shotgun.

Sorry, but your "right" to have an assault weapon is not worth more than one single child's life. You don't need an AR-15 to shoot deer and you certainly don't need one to defend yourself. Just as society has come to terms with the idea that people don't need machine guns, we need to accept that citizens don't need assault weapons.

Pistols, shotguns and standard hunting rifles should be more than sufficient to make you gun people happy.

The second amendment says nothing about hunting, and I don't think anyone here has made the argument that an AR-15 is needed for hunting, so nice straw man.

As far as defense, who the heck are you to tell someone what they "need" to defend themselves? An AR-15 might not be "needed" in all situations, but can certainly result in increased odds of survival with less collateral damage in many situations due to the modular nature of the weapon system, ease of operation, and the cartridge used.

You would choose to deny the vast majority of AR-15 owners the constitutional ability to defend themselves in the manner they see fit based on an extreme and screwed up minority that are determined to kill and would likely find other ways to do so if they couldn't get their hands on an AR-15. Someone like Adam Lanza would not have been stopped by an assault weapons ban.

And this doesn't even consider the SHTF scenerio, which will happen eventually, as it does with every nation if History is an indicator.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Just as we currently prohibit the private ownership of machine guns and atomic bombs, I don't see are reason why we cannot also prohibit the private ownership of assault weapons which truly have no legitimate purpose.

Their militia purpose is legitimate. As is their use for lawful defense of oneself and others. And FYI we don't prohibit private ownership of machine guns.

One does not need an assault weapon to hunt,

Strawman

nor does one need an assault weapon to defend yourself.

Says who?

I fail to see the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic assault weapons.

I fail to see how someone who served in the military can make this statement with a straight face.

Here we go again with this silly argument.

I reject the premise that one's liberty is somehow inexorably linked with one's ability to own an assault weapon.

We have prohibited the private ownership of machine guns since the 1930's and yet our democracy has endured....

At the time machine guns were restricted (NOT prohibited), they were not in wide use by the military or law enforcement. They were primarily used by gangsters as they were prohibitively expensive and only good at close range. Thus, their restriction was justified at the time by their lack of militia purpose. If you'll notice, though, we've had an increasing police state since that time as the police have largely become paramilitary and equipped with the same assault weapons now used by the military.

They also have a tendency in many places to trample citizens rights and get away with it because they have bigger guns than most individual citizens. What we really need is to revisit and loosen the restrictions on common military arms such as the M4, M14, and M16 to level the playing field for the law abiding citizen.

[Minister_of_Information]

The bottom line is that Hudson rejects not only the militia function but an armed populace in any form. So he's making a distinction without a difference.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Mea culpa. Either way, the choice of weapon was really an irrelevant factor in the number killed in Newtown. All the victims were unarmed and he was not in any kind of hurry. He could have gotten the exact same results with a break action shotgun.

Unless you were there, you have no way of knowing that. It is entirely possible that some of those kids would be alive today if he didn't have a weapon that could fire 30 rounds before it needed to be reloaded.

Originally Posted by helix139

The second amendment says nothing about hunting, and I don't think anyone here has made the argument that an AR-15 is needed for hunting, so nice straw man.

As far as defense, who the heck are you to tell someone what they "need" to defend themselves? An AR-15 might not be "needed" in all situations, but can certainly result in increased odds of survival with less collateral damage in many situations due to the modular nature of the weapon system, ease of operation, and the cartridge used.

You would choose to deny the vast majority of AR-15 owners the constitutional ability to defend themselves in the manner they see fit based on an extreme and screwed up minority that are determined to kill and would likely find other ways to do so if they couldn't get their hands on an AR-15. Someone like Adam Lanza would not have been stopped by an assault weapons ban.

We already limit people's ability to defend themselves. That is nothing new.

I am sure there are lots of folks out there who would love to have a fully automatic assault weapon to "defend themselves."

Why do we limit the ability to own machine guns and atomic weapons if we, as a society, do not have a right to decide what is legitimately needed?

The fact is we have already made that decision, simply moving assault weapons across the line from legal to illegal is hardly an Earth shattering event.

Originally Posted by helix139

And this doesn't even consider the SHTF scenerio, which will happen eventually, as it does with every nation if History is an indicator.

Ah the old Mad Max scenario...can't really help you there. Go build your bunker and wait....

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Just as we currently prohibit the private ownership of machine guns and atomic bombs, I don't see are reason why we cannot also prohibit the private ownership of assault weapons which truly have no legitimate purpose. One does not need an assault weapon to hunt, nor does one need an assault weapon to defend yourself. I fail to see the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic assault weapons.

Here we go again with this silly argument.

I reject the premise that one's liberty is somehow inexorably linked with one's ability to own an assault weapon.

We have prohibited the private ownership of machine guns since the 1930's and yet our democracy has endured....

Who told you to say that ? Bill Matthews ? Rachel Madow ?

First, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon." By definition, any weapon lawfully used for self defense could be characterized as an "assault weapon," as the person wielding it most certainly would be using it to assault the perpetrator committing a criminal act.

Unless your disingenuous objective is really, the confiscation of all such weapons - which it is, I realize - then by virtue of them existing in the real world, I have a 2nd Amendment right to lawfully own and possess one, for my self defense and protection against the unlawful use of one such weapon against me.

So just come on out and say it, i.e., that the only way in your world the alleged harm can be eliminated from any such weapon that can be so characterized as an "assault weapon," is to confiscate them. Which is what you want.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I have, and the funny thing is that it doesn't mention assault weapons...

Indeed. So, describe one for me please. Be specific.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Their militia purpose is legitimate. As is their use for lawful defense of oneself and others. And FYI we don't prohibit private ownership of machine guns.

We still have a militia, it now called the National Guard. It serves a necessary role in our Nation. What's our point?

Originally Posted by helix139

I fail to see how someone who served in the military can make this statement with a straight face.

I did and quite easily.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Indeed. So, describe one for me please. Be specific.

I assume you asking me to describe an assault weapon?

To me it is easy, any rifle or shotgun with a detachable magazine.

So for all you non-Mad Max wannabe survivalists out there, you can still have hunt, protect your home (although I would recommend a pistol in close quarters) and target shoot as much as you like.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Unless you were there, you have no way of knowing that. It is entirely possible that some of those kids would be alive today if he didn't have a weapon that could fire 30 rounds before it needed to be reloaded. [You are speculating, without knowing. See, e.g., Virginia Tech.]

We already limit people's ability to defend themselves. That is nothing new. [I agree. See below.]

I am sure there are lots of folks out there who would love to have a fully automatic assault weapon to "defend themselves." [A lot of people own fully automatic weapons . . . lawfully.]

Why do we limit the ability to own machine guns and atomic weapons if we, as a society, do not have a right to decide what is legitimately needed? [The idea is that the individual need to defend oneself naturally should consider the type of individual attack that is possible. It is not possible to be attacked by nuclear weapons, tanks, mortars, etc., and those items are not available to the individual - as you have implicitly admitted above. Kind of absurdly elemental, one would think, but apparently the idea needs to be explained to the confiscation squad more than once.]

The fact is we have already made that decision, simply moving assault weapons across the line from legal to illegal is hardly a Earth shattering event.

Ah the old Mad Max scenario...can't really help you there. Go build your bunker and wait....

OK.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

You are speculating, without knowing. See, e.g., Virginia Tech.

I am not really sure what point you are trying to make. I said it is "entirely possible." Read first, type second.

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

A lot of people own fully automatic weapons . . . lawfully.

I suppose we need to define the term "a lot."

Regardless, I would be perfectly fine with the same limitation on the ownership of machine guns also being placed on semi-automatic assault weapons. How's that for compromise?

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

The idea is that the individual need to defend oneself naturally should consider the type of individual attack that is possible. It is not possible to be attacked by nuclear weapons, tanks, mortars, etc., and those items are not available to the individual - as you have implicitly admitted above. Kind of absurdly elemental, one would think, but apparently the idea needs to be explained to the confiscation squad more than once.

You simply refuse to address the issue. One more time, we already limit the ability of citizens to defend themselves with machine guns, how is applying that same limitation to assault weapons any different?

[baygator1]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

However, illegal guns come heavily from 2 sources: Licensed gun dealers acting in an illegal manner and the theft of legal guns. One of the primary methods in which licensed gun dealers act in an illegal manner is through straw purchases, in which one person who can buy a gun buys a gun for a person who can't legally buy a gun.

I take special exception to this slanderous absurdity. The party acting illegally in nearly all straw purchases is the buyer who commits a felony by lying on the ATF form (#4473) required for gun purchases through a licensed dealer.

11a on the form:

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

I understand that answering "yes" to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.

The vast majority of gun dealers value their business and the terms of the firearms license they hold. They will not jeopardize their business or that license by knowingly participating in a felony with a straw purchaser. Unless, of course, they are directed by the ATF to do it as part of some typical government jackassery like illegally funneling weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wygator

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Maybe if I had the accompanying article.

Please explain what you want me to understand from this graph.

The very strong negative correlation between gun deaths and the implementation of an assault rifle ban. So basically, areas with assault rifle bans have far lower gun death rates than areas without assault rifle bans. In addition, safe storage requirements and trigger locks seem to be associated with lower per capita gun crime rates. These effects dwarf the fairly minor effects of Inequality, Unemployment, Illegal Drug Use, Stress, Neuroticism, and Mental Illness.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I assume you asking me to describe an assault weapon?

To me it is easy, any rifle or shotgun with a detachable magazine.

So for all you non-Mad Max wannabe survivalists out there, you can still have hunt, protect your home (although I would recommend a pistol in close quarters) and target shoot as much as you like.

Not handguns? Most handguns sold today have detachable magazines.

Also, one can load ten rounds in some pump shotguns. As well as several models of rifles. No magazine is needed. In fact, there are a lot of rifles with detachable magazines that hold less than that. For example I own a .17 caliber rifle with a detachable magazine that only holds five rounds. That is an assault rifle, by your definition?

This is such a silly definition. As if a detachable magazine makes a weapon more lethal.

You are aware that more people are killed by hammers each year than by rifles of any kind? Assault rifles are a subset of that group.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Not handguns? Most handguns sold today have detachable magazines.

Also, one can load ten rounds in some pump shotguns. As well as several models of rifles. In fact, there are a lot of rifles with detachable magazines that hold less than that. For example I own a .17 caliber rifle with a detachable magazine that only holds five rounds. That is an assault rifle, by your definition?

This is such a silly definition. As if a detachable magazine makes a weapon more lethal.

A detachable magazine absolutely makes a weapon more lethal, why else do you suppose every standard military issue rifle on the freaking planet has one? (hopefully you understand that that is a rhetorical question).

You asked for my definition and I gave it to you.

If you don't like it, tough.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Unless you were there, you have no way of knowing that. It is entirely possible that some of those kids would be alive today if he didn't have a weapon that could fire 30 rounds before it needed to be reloaded.

And you have no way of knowing whether or not he wouldn't have simply built an IED. He was screwed up in the head and determined to kill a lot of people and that is the reason why he did. Not any gun.

We already limit people's ability to defend themselves. That is nothing new.

I am sure there are lots of folks out there who would love to have a fully automatic assault weapon to "defend themselves."

Why do we limit the ability to own machine guns and atomic weapons if we, as a society, do not have a right to decide what is legitimately needed?

The fact is we have already made that decision, simply moving assault weapons across the line from legal to illegal is hardly a Earth shattering event.

From a legal perspective, you're looking at it the wrong way. It isn't "what does a person need to defend themselves" It's "A person has a right to defend themselves and therefore what is the least restrictive means to allow them to do so." Your line of thinking implies that any method of defense needs justification. The true legal thinking implies that any method and/or degree of restriction needs justification.

And as I pointed out, you can legally own a machine gun for self defense. Atomic Bombs are not arms under any accepted definition, and their restriction would meet any level of judicial scrutiny. Why you keep trying to equate them with machine guns or "assault rifles" is truly beyond me.

Ah the old Mad Max scenario...can't really help you there. Go build your bunker and wait....

Great argument. Make fun of/ridicule those who you disagree with rather than providing a cogent and logical argument as to why you think the scenario will never happen. You have some mad debate skills bro.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

The very strong negative correlation between gun deaths and the implementation of an assault rifle ban. So basically, areas with assault rifle bans have far lower gun death rates than areas without assault rifle bans. In addition, safe storage requirements and trigger locks seem to be associated with lower per capita gun crime rates. These effects dwarf the fairly minor effects of Inequality, Unemployment, Illegal Drug Use, Stress, Neuroticism, and Mental Illness.

Did you know that violent crime in the USA has been trending down for quite some time. This in the face of more guns and more relaxed gun laws? No doubt there is a causal effect, right?