Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity since Parkland shooting

[ataraxia]

It's not a 2A issue. It's a fissile material issue.

Let's talk real world. Defend an AR-15 ban.

It seems that distinction seems like a fairly arbitrary one. You don’t trust proud patriotic Americans to be responsible enough for owning for sale material?

And as far as the AR 15: it falls on the same spectrum of crazy weapons . You see, for people who have not grown around these weapons, it seems as crazy to want to own one of those As it is to own a nuclear weapons. It’s way too much for home security use, and way too little for protecting against potential government tyranny and deterrence. All it does is put a rather dangerous weapon in the hands of some potentially really kookie and crazy people. Yes, not everyone who buys one of these things is a responsible, patriotic American. It’s a dangerous tool, and like any dangerous tool, there needs to be some regulations on its use.

 

[ataraxia]

Why do you think? It's not about what I believe, other than the restriction on the possession of fissile material is not a 2A issue.



Sure it's drawn on logic: see Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano. You've yet to address how you would ban or further restrict AR-15s and 30 round magazines even though logic shows clearly according to SCOTUS that they are "in common use for lawful purposes".

I would do it the same way Reagan did it with full autos: Restrict any further sales of new weapons.

 

[Rucker61]

It seems that distinction seems like a fairly arbitrary one. You don’t trust proud patriotic Americans to be responsible enough for owning for sale material?

Call it as you wish. No one wants to allow free flow of fissile material, so it's not an interesting debate. Let's talk about that other thing.

And as far as the AR 15: it falls on the same spectrum of crazy weapons . You see, for people who have not grown around these weapons, it seems as crazy to want to own one of those As it is to own a nuclear weapons.

Anyone who conflates a weapon of mass destruction with a semiautomatic rifle doesn't know enough about either to have a rational opinion on the subject.

It’s way too much for home security use

Wrong. Of the different types of firearms that I own, it's the optimal weapon for home security.

, and way too little for protecting against potential government tyranny and deterrence. All it does is put a rather dangerous weapon in the hands of some potentially really kookie and crazy people. Yes, not everyone who buys one of these things is a responsible, patriotic American. It’s a dangerous tool, and like any dangerous tool, there needs to be some regulations on its use.

Every firearm is dangerous. That's not up for debate. You present a purely emotional argument. Now apply it to the restrictions of power on the government as affirmed by Miller, Heller, Caetano and McDonald. And like every firearm, there are plenty of regulations on its use. Like all other legal weapons, it's useful for the ..."purpose of hunting, ..., target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity". That's from the Gun Control Act of 1968. There's nothing unique about the AR-15 that supports a ban.

 

[Rucker61]

I would do it the same way Reagan did it with full autos: Restrict any further sales of new weapons.

But Heller and Caetano say that you can't restrict firearms "in common use for lawful purposes". Why would you suggest an unconstitutional law?

 

[ataraxia]

Call it as you wish. No one wants to allow free flow of fissile material, so it's not an interesting debate. Let's talk about that other thing.

It's interesting if you want us to take your logic seriously. Either we take your logic seriously and apply it as you state it, or we realize the logic is messed up. You can't say "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but then take issue with "nukes don't kill people, people kill people". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[ataraxia]

But Heller and Caetano say that you can't restrict firearms "in common use for lawful purposes". Why would you suggest an unconstitutional law?

If this is unconstitutional, then so is what Reagan did with full autos.

There is no common useful purpose for these weapons. No one needs them to defend their home. And you can target practice with something that is a little bit less indiscriminate than something that can take out half the building in short order. And they will not be common once you stop selling them.

 

[Rucker61]

It's interesting if you want us to take your logic seriously. Either we take your logic seriously and apply it as you state it, or we realize the logic is messed up. You can't say "guns don't kill people, people kill people", but then take issue with "nukes don't kill people, people kill people". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Deflect, deflect, deflect. I've already pointed out that the fissile material is restricted by non-2A related laws and they aren't in common use for lawful purposes. Now come back to the land of reality and discuss things we can change. You're the one risking credibility, Mr Reagan.

 

[ataraxia]

Anyone who conflates a weapon of mass destruction with a semiautomatic rifle doesn't know enough about either to have a rational opinion on the subject.

Any weapon that can take out half an elementary school or half a music concert audience in a few minutes is a weapon of mass destruction.

Wrong. Of the different types of firearms that I own, it's the optimal weapon for home security.

Nope. Goes through too many walls and has too much chance of hitting neighbors or even your own family members in the house. Most home security experts agree that a small handgun or at most, a shotgun, is all you really need.

If you need more, you may just not have the skills. Try target practicing with something that doesn't take out the whole target board and half of the building behind it too.

 

[Rucker61]

If this is unconstitutional, then so is what Reagan did with full autos.

I quite agree. I don't even agree that what FDR did with them was Constitutional.

There is no common useful purpose for these weapons

That's not the requirement, is it? They just have to be in common use (200,000 plus sold!) for lawful purposes. According to the Gun Control Act of 1968, lawful purposes include target shooting, hunting or self defense. The AR-15 in the millions owned are used for those purposes.

Common legal uses for AR-15s and similar firearms:
1. Long distance shooting. Service Rifle - Civilian Marksmanship ProgramCivilian Marksmanship Program
2. Competition - News | 3 Gun Nation
3. Practice – for long distance or competition
4. Plinking/recreational shooting – cheapest centerfire ammo, low recoil, adaptable frame.
5. Varmint hunting - 10 1/2 Inch A4 Upper Half
6. Big game hunting, in the proper caliber and legal magazine. - Finally, 4 AR-Style Rifles Chambered for Big Game Hunting | Field & Stream
7. Self-defense. - Ultimate .300 Blackout Ammo Test - Shooting Times

. No one needs them to defend their home.

The right to keep and bear arms isn't "needs" based.

And you can target practice with something that is a little bit less indiscriminate than something that can take out half the building in short order.

You really don't know much about terminal ballistics, do you? AR-15s can be as precise as bolt action rifles, and bolt action rifles in large calibers will do more damage to a building than a .22 caliber bullet will. Does the government have the power to determine the optimal firearm for each lawful use and ban the rest

And they will not be common once you stop selling them.

Oh, sure they will. Just the announcement of a potential ban will cause a up swell in sales, boosting the number in civilian hands to 20 million or so. They are very durable goods, and it will be a long, long time until there are less than 200,000 in use.

 

[Rucker61]

Any weapon that can take out half an elementary school or half a music concert audience in a few minutes is a weapon of mass destruction.

You don't get to make up your own terminology. By your definition, exaggerated as the terms are, a truck in a WMD. Gasoline is a WMD. A bag full of revolvers could be an WMD. A bolt action rifle is a WMD.

Nope. Goes through too many walls and has too much chance of hitting neighbors or even your own family members in the house. Most home security experts agree that a small handgun or at most, a shotgun, is all you really need.

The AR-15 is available in over 100 calibers and dozens of types of bullets, many of which are designed to be low penetration. Tests have shown that even the 55 gr FMJ has less overpenetration through drywall than a 9mm JHP or buckshot from a 12 gauge. A trained shooter is also much less likely to miss a target with an AR-15, and it's the misses that go through walls.

https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/...ate-home-defense-part-one-penetration-issues/

Should You Consider an AR-15 for Home Defense? | Range365

Why An AR-15 For Home Defense Is The Best Choice | Gun Digest

If you need more, you may just not have the skills. Try target practicing with something that doesn't take out the whole target board and half of the building behind it too.

I do. My AR-15. I practice with rifle, pistol and shotgun, and even at close range the AR rules for accuracy. They aren't blast cannon. Do some research on terminal ballistics before you embarrass yourself further.

 

[TurtleDude]

It seems that distinction seems like a fairly arbitrary one. You don’t trust proud patriotic Americans to be responsible enough for owning for sale material?

And as far as the AR 15: it falls on the same spectrum of crazy weapons . You see, for people who have not grown around these weapons, it seems as crazy to want to own one of those As it is to own a nuclear weapons. It’s way too much for home security use, and way too little for protecting against potential government tyranny and deterrence. All it does is put a rather dangerous weapon in the hands of some potentially really kookie and crazy people. Yes, not everyone who buys one of these things is a responsible, patriotic American. It’s a dangerous tool, and like any dangerous tool, there needs to be some regulations on its use.

this sort of nonsense is typical from the anti gun movement. "If we find it scary it should be banned" nonsense. claiming it is "way too much for home security" is the sign of severe ignorance.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

It seems that distinction seems like a fairly arbitrary one. You don’t trust proud patriotic Americans to be responsible enough for owning for sale material?

And as far as the AR 15: it falls on the same spectrum of crazy weapons . You see, for people who have not grown around these weapons, it seems as crazy to want to own one of those As it is to own a nuclear weapons. It’s way too much for home security use, and way too little for protecting against potential government tyranny and deterrence. All it does is put a rather dangerous weapon in the hands of some potentially really kookie and crazy people. Yes, not everyone who buys one of these things is a responsible, patriotic American. It’s a dangerous tool, and like any dangerous tool, there needs to be some regulations on its use.

I understand why people fear guns, but I believe this argument is a false dichotomy. People don't need to match force with the federal government; they need to match force with local armed militias, which is how dictatorships actually operate. A tiny minority of a population can completely dominate an unarmed populace at the neighborhood level with a small armed police force. See the Blackshirts. See what's happening right now in Venezuela.

Consider this thought experiment: Take the three craziest Trump supporters in your neighborhood. Give them semi-automatic weapons, rudimentary training, and police powers. Tell them to quell all opposition. How far do they get if every other household has the same firepower? How far do they get if no one does?

 

[ataraxia]

I understand why people fear guns, but I believe this argument is a false dichotomy. People don't need to match force with the federal government; they need to match force with local armed militias, which is how dictatorships actually operate. A tiny minority of a population can completely dominate an unarmed populace at the neighborhood level with a small armed police force. See the Blackshirts. See what's happening right now in Venezuela.

Consider this thought experiment: Take the three craziest Trump supporters in your neighborhood. Give them semi-automatic weapons, rudimentary training, and police powers. Tell them to quell all opposition. How far do they get if every other household has the same firepower? How far do they get if no one does?

A simple handgun is more than enough for those purposes.

 

[Rucker61]

A simple handgun is more than enough for those purposes.

No it isn't. Why do you persist in this baseless opinion?

 

[Vadinho]

that isn't what i said but typical liberal dishonesty tactic.
is it that hard to address actual arguments? i guess so.

I am 100% against the police confiscating anything without a warrant and or due process of the individual.
it is 100% unconstitutional.

unlike leftists i am pretty consistent.

Confiscation of guns is illegal? Any gun? Is your basis Heller?

 

[Vadinho]

I understand why people fear guns, but I believe this argument is a false dichotomy. People don't need to match force with the federal government; they need to match force with local armed militias, which is how dictatorships actually operate. A tiny minority of a population can completely dominate an unarmed populace at the neighborhood level with a small armed police force. See the Blackshirts. See what's happening right now in Venezuela.

Consider this thought experiment: Take the three craziest Trump supporters in your neighborhood. Give them semi-automatic weapons, rudimentary training, and police powers. Tell them to quell all opposition. How far do they get if every other household has the same firepower? How far do they get if no one does?

Perhaps in the short run if law enforcement refuses to intervene but in the long run, those three nuts will go down. I watched a Canadian journalist give a lecture on a possible civil war in America. The comments section on youtube was disturbing. Militant right wingers were posting insane apocalyptic nonsense about how right wingers would destroy liberals en masse in some kind of home grown pogrom or carefully planned sieges of large urban areas. It got so absurd that some were laying out plans to block ports, cut off food supplies to cities, encircle them with militias, kill neighbors, it was straight out of Chechnya or Serbia. The lecture did point to a possible civil war using false comparisons of rhetoric from both sides to say that we are on the verge of an outbreak. I found the guy to be a joke. He said that outlets like Fox, CNN and MSNBC were equally divisive and incendiary. That is total bull.

 

[TurtleDude]

A simple handgun is more than enough for those purposes.

given your ignorance of firearms, your dislike of firearms and your lack of any experience in the defensive use of firearms, I am going to say your claim is complete and utter BS and is nothing more than a fraudulent attempt to justify banning guns you are afraid of

 

[ludin]

Confiscation of guns is illegal? Any gun? Is your basis Heller?

please show me where i said that?
dishonest is dishonest. if you can't be honest in what we are talking about have a nice day.

 

[ludin]

A simple handgun is more than enough for those purposes.

you not being able to speak or write things you want is more than ok.
you just being arrested for walking down the street is ok as well.

ol yea the police just barging in your home without cause that is fine as well.

glad you agree.

 

[ataraxia]

given your ignorance of firearms, your dislike of firearms and your lack of any experience in the defensive use of firearms, I am going to say your claim is complete and utter BS and is nothing more than a fraudulent attempt to justify banning guns you are afraid of

This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of most home security experts. If your goal is home defense, you don’t need a cache of 300 semi automatic rifles to do it. If you do, you are doing something very wrong.

 

[ataraxia]

Perhaps in the short run if law enforcement refuses to intervene but in the long run, those three nuts will go down. I watched a Canadian journalist give a lecture on a possible civil war in America. The comments section on youtube was disturbing. Militant right wingers were posting insane apocalyptic nonsense about how right wingers would destroy liberals en masse in some kind of home grown pogrom or carefully planned sieges of large urban areas. It got so absurd that some were laying out plans to block ports, cut off food supplies to cities, encircle them with militias, kill neighbors, it was straight out of Chechnya or Serbia. The lecture did point to a possible civil war using false comparisons of rhetoric from both sides to say that we are on the verge of an outbreak. I found the guy to be a joke. He said that outlets like Fox, CNN and MSNBC were equally divisive and incendiary. That is total bull.

When all you have is a hammer, all you see is nails.

When all you have in life is your gun, all you see is conflict, fear, hatred, and warfare.

This is not just a personal opinion because I don’t like guns. Large studies have shown this.

The "weapons effect" | Psychology Today

 

[Rucker61]

When all you have is a hammer, all you see is nails.

When all you have in life is your gun, all you see is conflict, fear, hatred, and warfare.

This is not just a personal opinion because I don’t like guns. Large studies have shown this.

The "weapons effect" | Psychology Today

A gun isn't all I have in my life.

"However, more research is needed on the link between exposure to weapons and aggression in provoked participants, especially in field settings."

 

[Rucker61]

This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of most home security experts. If your goal is home defense, you don’t need a cache of 300 semi automatic rifles to do it. If you do, you are doing something very wrong.

Nice but ineffective hyperbole. Please cite where "more home security experts" state that "A simple handgun is more than enough for those purposes."

I'm not protecting my home with a cache of 300 semiautomatic rifles. Where do you come up with this stuff? It certainly doesn't help your credibility. With regards to a home invasion, my .300 Blackout AR pistol firing 110 gr Barnes VOR-TX rounds through a suppressor is a more accurate, more controllable and more effective system than any handgun I can think of.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

A simple handgun is more than enough for those purposes.

Remember when D.C. banned all handguns? At different times, people have argued that no one needs handguns; no one needs semi-automatics; no one needs magazines; no one needs whatever. In the U.K., they're dealing with knife crimes.

The fact is, people with bad intentions will find ways to inflict harm. And, though it's been said many times, laws restricting gun ownership only really affect law-abiding gun owners, and, of course, the overwhelming majority of gun crimes in the U.S. employ illegal firearms.

I get it's a complex issue. I do think that gun control Australian-style would lead to fewer illegal firearms and less gun deaths overall in the U.S. But, likewise, banning private cars would lead to fewer traffic deaths. Guns have utility, and Americans outside of the cities don't have much of a taste for confiscation schemes, so we must accept the trade-off.

 

[ataraxia]

Remember when D.C. banned all handguns? At different times, people have argued that no one needs handguns; no one needs semi-automatics; no one needs magazines; no one needs whatever. In the U.K., they're dealing with knife crimes.

The fact is, people with bad intentions will find ways to inflict harm. And, though it's been said many times, laws restricting gun ownership only really affect law-abiding gun owners, and, of course, the overwhelming majority of gun crimes in the U.S. employ illegal firearms.

I get it's a complex issue. I do think that gun control Australian-style would lead to fewer illegal firearms and less gun deaths overall in the U.S. But, likewise, banning private cars would lead to fewer traffic deaths. Guns have utility, and Americans outside of the cities don't have much of a taste for confiscation schemes, so we must accept the trade-off.

I would agree with you 100% here. And thank you for being willing to hear and understand the other side of the argument. I think if more people approached the situation from your perspective, this debate would be much less intractable.

But that still doesn’t help me understand the level of paranoia on any reasonable regulations on these dangerous tools. Closing the gun show loopholes, placing some reasonable limits on magazine capacity, regulations on certain types of bullets, etc...

People need cars and trucks as well. But there are lots of regulations on what kind of cars and trucks can be sold so that they are street legal. There is licensing and registration and training requirements and vision tests and doctors clearances For people who are suspected to be impaired, etc...

You can’t tell me that guns are more safe than cars and we should have no regulations whatsoever on them.

The argument I hear from many people here is that “I am a good driver and responsible gun owner, so there should be no laws whatsoever on those things. You can see why it might be a little puzzling to hear this. It doesn’t make sense.