Another day another mass shooting

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

To be clear, I consider any gun that will fire every time you pull the trigger and has a magazine of over 10 bullets an assault weapon. Why the fuck would any law abiding US citizen need something like that?

There isn’t any need for it. IMO, the best way to regulate that is to ban all weapons with detachable ammo containers of any kind, shape, size, etc. etc. That way, you don’t run into the absurd semantics game that gun nuts love to play. They want us to get hung up on what these weapons are called, and to forget what they do.

Nothing absurd nor semantics involved. An assault weapon is well defined. It is capable of FULL AUTO fire. Hold the trigger in and it empties the mag. Assault weapons are rarely used in crime in this country.

BNW that is not at all an accurate definition. The M1 was an assault rifle , it didn’t get selective fire until 1944. At the time the 2nd amendment was written assault rifles were muskets. Semi-autos are not at all better for hunting. Bolt action hunting rifles are superior in accuracy and safety. An idiot with a semi-auto 30.06 is the reason I retired from rifle hunting. If I can take deer with one arrow you damn sure don’t need a 40 round clip on your AK or AR. My own thoughts on the problem in general are to concentrate on getting and keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy people. The current “background check” is a joke. It’s more of a customer service survey on the honor system than a legitimate background check.

This thread got into the gun control aspect of it. There’s another thread that focuses on the politics of it. As in, basically, there were none (generally speaking). The shooter was not an Islamic fundamentalist and this had nothing to do with those guys (ie. Islamic fundamentalists).

Omar Mateen and Rightwing Homophobia

bnw wrote:

Eternal Ramnation wrote:

BNW that is not at all an accurate definition. The M1 was an assault rifle , it didn’t get selective fire until 1944. At the time the 2nd amendment was written assault rifles were muskets. Semi-autos are not at all better for hunting. Bolt action hunting rifles are superior in accuracy and safety. An idiot with a semi-auto 30.06 is the reason I retired from rifle hunting. If I can take deer with one arrow you damn sure don’t need a 40 round clip on your AK or AR. My own thoughts on the problem in general are to concentrate on getting and keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy people. The current “background check” is a joke. It’s more of a customer service survey on the honor system than a legitimate background check.

It is absolutely the ACCURATE description. The M1 to which you refer is the carbine. Granted according to the moronic rules of the ’90s it indeed possessed the attributes the Clinton Administration created to confuse the public and profit its campaign donors. The government and the press called the legislation the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 whereas the the actual name of the legislation was the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. For those unaware of the moronic rules of that legislation for an assault rifle-

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[11]

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.

That law confused people who do not know firearms. It also made political supporters of Clinton a lot of money by importing weapons such as the M1 Carbine which met the ridiculous criteria but in no way was ever considered an assault rifle. I asked this very question of an ATF agent at that time who agreed with me and further stated the agency is not at all concerned with that rifle. The imported M1 carbines brought increasingly higher prices by the restriction on imports. Pure profit to the importers. Increased prices for all pre-ban variants of other firearms too. It was never about safety. It was always about money.

Cosmetic features[edit]
Gun control advocates and gun rights advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the Violence Policy Center both used the term in publications they released in September 2004 when the ban expired.[13][14] In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, “the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced.”[15] The term was repeated in several stories after the 2012 Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[16][17]

ER,

Had to leave earlier so couldn’t fully address your comment on the M1 Carbine until now. The carbine was not intended for front line fighting. It was for support troops that might find themselves in a fight. It replaced the side arm issued to these troops since it had far greater accuracy at much greater range. Since it weighed much less than the M1 Garand and the Thompson submachine gun many troops went out of their way to acquire one in the field. The M1A1 was a carbine with a folding stock only which was reserved for paratroops. The M2 Carbine was the full auto version. Since minor mods were required to enable the M1 Carbine to fire full auto many were later converted as well.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by bnw.

PA Ram wrote:

Here’s what I know: The guy had an AR-15. He killed almost 50 people and wounded over 50 more. That weapon should be illegal. Period. I don’t care what you call it.

I call it throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

bnw wrote:

So I’m not allowed to respond to your post? Every time I do I get a 403 Forbidden message.

I have no control over “403 Forbidden Message.” That’s a warning indicating the server is down or the site is temporarily disconnected from the server. It just happens now and then…and happens to me too. No mod here can generate that. It comes from way down the line, like I said (as I understand it) at the server.

We would just create a large and very violent black market for weapons.

When Australia banned guns the black market was exorbitant. Guns that cost 1000 here cost the equivalent of 30-something thousand there.

. How does one sink so far into the darkness of hate to the point of killing and maiming over one hundred individuals?

Who knows, but I do know it’s a lot harder to stab 50 people rather than shoot them when you’ve flown off in a rage.

And the incidents here far outnumber the incidents elsewhere, even accounting for the difference jn population sizes.

I doubt it’s only americans who fly off into hate rages.

…

.

The combination of legalizing drugs and criminalizing guns would have a DRAMATIC effect on this.

Criminals wouldn’t have the funding source while at the same time, the guns, themselves, would become crazy expensive.

The last prong of that would be gun reclamation because we have 300 MILLION guns outstanding and that’s too much outstanding stock for a black market not to initially thrive. True success would require an effective means to reduce that standing supply immediately.

PA Ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

PA Ram wrote:

Here’s what I know: The guy had an AR-15. He killed almost 50 people and wounded over 50 more. That weapon should be illegal. Period. I don’t care what you call it.

I call it throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If that’s what it takes.

Fine for you. But you don’t speak for me. You’re free to not exercise your 2nd Amendment right.

Right on, bnw!

I want to exercise my 2nd amendment rights. I want a 40 mm grenade launcher. Better yet, I want artillery, 155 mm. What, I can’t? But why, don’t I have the right??

Please understand, to me, your argument of exercising your 2nd Amendment right with regard to long guns just makes you sound silly.

In short, we’ve never, ever had the right to an AR-15. We could easily ban their sale, manufacture, trade, import, export and possession while still adhering to the Second Amendment.

The Equal Protection Clause, General Welfare Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, and Commerce Clause, all support this.

And we should. We should stop making it so easy for Americans to slaughter each other. That’s just pure common sense. Any sane society would do as much.

InvaderRam wrote:

well it’s tricky. yes as it stands now we have the right to bear arms. now does that mean we have the right to bear a nuclear warhead? well no. selling nuclear warheads at your local walmart might not be a sound idea. so where does one draw the line? i do know this. the ar-15. it’s an easy way to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.

as far as the black market argument i don’t know the validity of that either way.

Yet the line won’t be drawn at the AR-15. It will deny all semi-autos. There’s nothing magical nor mystical about the AR-15. There is a terrible glut of them in the used market these days. Prices have fallen sharply over the last 2 years too. So many people are trying to sell them now that most shops won’t take them on consignment or if they do it is only because the seller has been a good customer. Madeen chose the .223 caliber SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle which among the variants would be ideal in such close quarters. It also remains to be seen if he wasn’t alone in the attack since witnesses have been coming forward stating that there was more than one gunman.

Billy_T wrote:

In short, we’ve never, ever had the right to an AR-15. We could easily ban their sale, manufacture, trade, import, export and possession while still adhering to the Second Amendment.

The Equal Protection Clause, General Welfare Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, and Commerce Clause, all support this.

And we should. We should stop making it so easy for Americans to slaughter each other. That’s just pure common sense. Any sane society would do as much.

We’ve always had the right. Especially in regards to the small arms technology of the day. Don’t worry about the AR-15 as it is soon to be obsolete. Much more effective weapons in the pipeline. Question is whether the M16 will then be made available for sale through the DCM in the semi-auto version. Same for the M14. Obama last year did allow the DCM to sell M1911 .45 cal. to civilians.

more than gun control i think there has to be a shift in the way we treat one another. there’s this general contempt for people who are not like us. not this board but people in general. whether they be christian or muslim straight or queer white or black. it’s disgusting.

get rid of guns. fine. but when are we going to treat each other with love and compassion and understanding?

Billy_T wrote:

No, bnw.

The right as put forth in the BOR was a collective one. It was ONLY in the context of a well-regulated state militia, for the purpose of protecting that state. It doesn’t say, anywhere, that you get to keep up with the latest technology or purchase military-style hardware, if you’re not in the military.

Yes, you have the right of self-defense. But that was yours centuries before the BOR was written. The British recognized that right among the colonies.

The BOR merely encoded a collective right for purposes of staffing and stocking state militias. And since they no longer exist, the entire rationale for that “right” is gone. It no longer exists, like those slave-catching militias.

We, as a society, have always had the right to prevent people from arming yourself to the teeth and going off on killing sprees, and nothing in the Constitution, and nothing in the BOR transcends society’s right to protect itself from them.

It’s time we grew up and ended our sick gun fetishism and our fear of the NRA. Literally millions of Americans are dead because of that fetishism and that fear.

Wrong again.

“Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The militia at that time was comprised of citizen volunteers who brought their own weapons. Therefore citizens already had their weapons. The 2nd amendment addresses two separate things. The first was the necessity of the militia. The second was the people HAVE the right to keep and bear arms. The two parts clearly dove tail. “the right of the people” part was in direct response to the British confiscating firearms.