Gun Protesters Plan March On Washington With Loaded Rifles To...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
However this is always the bane of gun owners in this nation. 80+ million of us but there is a very tiny percentage that constantly make people question gun ownership. Most often it's those who don't even own the guns legally. By the way the media reports it and the general filter of information on the internet you would really think that our streets are as lawless as the wild west with gun owners constantly shooting up everything they see. It's never good publicity especially when under the criticisms of people who have put all of their faith in the state and/or have no real culture revolving around personal gun ownership.
Wasdie
Nice ad hominem you've got there.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Master_Live"] Or they could just behave.Master_LiveThey're already not behaving by doing this protest in the first place. What they're doing is already illegal, and they're relying on sheer force of numbers to protect themselves. "I think it should be clear that if anyone involved in this event is approached respectfully by agents of the state, they will submit to arrest without resisting." ^^^From the Facebook posting. When college students or George Clooney does it, it is fine but now it isn't?
College students and George Clooney go out protesting with loaded guns?
[QUOTE="Audacitron"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]I can almost certainly guarantee that out of 900 people there's going to be at the very, very least one who isn't responsible with his gun. I just really hope that in the heat of whatever moment may happen this doesn't go bad.Ace6301
I think it's possible to have 900 gun-toters behave themselves for a day. Military parades don't turn into rampages.
But what's blatantly obvious is that this is really about deliberate provocation, deliberate intimidation, and confrontation. If the intent was purely peaceful, the weapons wouldn't be loaded
The main difference being the military spends months practicing these parades and those chosen to march tend to be very disciplined. That and the military co-operates with the local government to ensure the parade route is closed and that laws aren't broken. This is going to be the farthest of the right wing who actually thinks Obama is evil and such. I'm sure most are responsible gun owners (or at least I hope) but having seen the way some of these types think I just won't believe this will be without incident until its over. It also wouldn't surprise me if some nut decides to use this as a cover for a shooting.
All I'm saying is that it's possible for them to 'regulate their militia' and actually be peaceful.
The main possibility I see is that massive amounts of military will be shipped in, to contain such a situation should it arise, and the gun nuts end up totally outnumbered. That'd be a PR victory for them because they can claim 'government tyranny'.
The main difference being the military spends months practicing these parades and those chosen to march tend to be very disciplined. That and the military co-operates with the local government to ensure the parade route is closed and that laws aren't broken. This is going to be the farthest of the right wing who actually thinks Obama is evil and such. I'm sure most are responsible gun owners (or at least I hope) but having seen the way some of these types think I just won't believe this will be without incident until its over. It also wouldn't surprise me if some nut decides to use this as a cover for a shooting.[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Audacitron"]
I think it's possible to have 900 gun-toters behave themselves for a day. Military parades don't turn into rampages.
But what's blatantly obvious is that this is really about deliberate provocation, deliberate intimidation, and confrontation. If the intent was purely peaceful, the weapons wouldn't be loaded
Audacitron
All I'm saying is that it's possible for them to 'regulate their militia' and actually be peaceful.
The main possibility I see is that massive amounts of military will be shipped in, to contain such a situation should it arise, and the gun nuts end up totally outnumbered. That'd be a PR victory for them because they can claim 'government tyranny'.
Like I said, the cops should just show up at the door of everyone who signed this pledge to march that morning and tell them they either leave their guns behind or get arrested on the spot. If they actually wait until these people assemble with loaded weapons to arrest them then somebody is gonna get shot. It might even be the cops who shoot first, it's just going to be a messy situation and impossible to handle in an organized manner.
[QUOTE="Master_Live"] "I think it should be clear that if anyone involved in this event is approached respectfully by agents of the state, they will submit to arrest without resisting." ^^^From the Facebook posting. When college students or George Clooney does it, it is fine but now it isn't? MrGeezerDo you seriously think that every single one of those 10,000 people is gonna submit to arrest without resisting? Hell, when college students protest, it's not exactly uncommon for a small percentage of them to turn violent either. Even routine run of the mill protests often end with a few people turning violent, and that's without them being emboldened by being part of a 10,000 strong group who are all carrying loaded rifles. When you get these kinds of numbers, you can't rely on 100% of the people involved acting peaceful. And the circumstances involved here make the consequences of a few people turning violent potentially catastrophic. Which is why this event could be a PR hit. Look at this thread, pretty much everyone expecting this to go bad. I think they know a large portion of the public is looking for then to screw up, they know how bad it would look for all gun owners if a tragedy occurs that they. So they behave nicely and all we get is "patriotic gun owners arrested peacefully while defending the 2nd amendment". Or it could go bonkers, of course :P
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Master_Live"] Or they could just behave.Master_LiveThey're already not behaving by doing this protest in the first place. What they're doing is already illegal, and they're relying on sheer force of numbers to protect themselves. "I think it should be clear that if anyone involved in this event is approached respectfully by agents of the state, they will submit to arrest without resisting." ^^^From the Facebook posting. When college students or George Clooney does it, it is fine but now it isn't?
Well back in the Civil Rights days protesters who allowed themselves to be arrested weren't seen as the problem as much as the people arresting them. Imagine if MLK attacked anyone trying to arrest him, would've had a much harder time getting his way. But it seems nowadays people believe raising hell and killing people is how people listen to you.
"I think it should be clear that if anyone involved in this event is approached respectfully by agents of the state, they will submit to arrest without resisting." ^^^From the Facebook posting. When college students or George Clooney does it, it is fine but now it isn't?[QUOTE="Audacitron"]
[QUOTE="Ace6301"] They're already not behaving by doing this protest in the first place. What they're doing is already illegal, and they're relying on sheer force of numbers to protect themselves.theone86
College students and George Clooney go out protesting with loaded guns?
College students and George Clooney go and do civil disobedience. Just like this group of gun owners if claiming they will do.
They averaged two mass shootings a year until they enacted gun control. There hasn't been a mass shooting since. Gun related crime has also reduced across the board. How much more successful do you want it to be?[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]
Furthermore, is there any evidence that crime has actually decreased in Australia and that this can be related to firearm legislation? Mass shootings only account for a miniscule percentage of all firearm related crimes anywhere you look. Hardly a good barometer to judge the effectiveness of so called "gun control".
Tezcatlipoca666
As I said, mass shootings are too statistically insignificant. And a general decrease in gun related crime has to be linked to the actual legislation. In the U.S. there has been a significant decrease in shootings since the 1980's however there has been no sweeping gun control measures. Various factors can influence crime.
The papers that I've been looking at do not suggest that the legislation has had much of an effect except to reduce the number of suicides by firearm. People have instead turned to alternative means to kill themselves. The homicide trend was already decreasing before the NFA was implemented. One of the articles I read.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x/abstract
Mass shootings are hugely more common than terrorist attacks - yet we will literally devote billions to invading other countries and implement sweeping security measures at airports to combat the latter. Why is the former deemed too statistically rare to bother doing anything about? Is the attitude honestly that a few dozen murdered kids every year is alright?
Open carry is illegal in Washington. These people are just soon to be criminals and also insane.
Open carry is illegal in Washington. These people are just soon to be criminals and also insane.
Aljosa23
this is what I'm thinking: if they arrest them and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, will they then get a criminal record and be legally unable to own a gun?
Let's be honest here, all the senate has done with the filibusters is stall the inevitable. 90% of Americans supported background checks. Mass shootings are happening twice a year. People are getting fed up and the Sandy Hook massacre was extremely close to being the final straw. We're literally on the countdown til the inevitable next mass shooting which is statistically likely to occur within 12 months of Sandy Hook and then people just wont tolerate it any more. The media **** storm gets worse with every incident.Ninja-HippoNothing will change if some senators don't lose their seat specifically because of the background votes. Even if you concede that 90% stat, it isn't 90% on red states so there is no reason for senators from those states to change their votes. You do know people from red states truly don't want those background checks, it isn't a joke or just a front, but they truly will bring down any senator voting in favor of background checks.
Let's be honest here, all the senate has done with the filibusters is stall the inevitable. 90% of Americans supported background checks. Mass shootings are happening twice a year. People are getting fed up and the Sandy Hook massacre was extremely close to being the final straw. We're literally on the countdown til the inevitable next mass shooting which is statistically likely to occur within 12 months of Sandy Hook and then people just wont tolerate it any more. The media **** storm gets worse with every incident.Ninja-Hippo
What are universal background checks going to do when someone's mental illness hasn't been reported? Like it wasn't for the guy who shot up the movie theater in Aurora.
I don't think the main problem is that NICS isn't being used. It's that NICS isn't getting the information it needs.
I do support universal background checks, with obvious exceptions for family to family transfers, and a few other select actions. It's ridiculous that a father should have to get a background check for his son to be able to transfer a gun to him, after all.
Let's be honest here, all the senate has done with the filibusters is stall the inevitable. 90% of Americans supported background checks. Mass shootings are happening twice a year. People are getting fed up and the Sandy Hook massacre was extremely close to being the final straw. We're literally on the countdown til the inevitable next mass shooting which is statistically likely to occur within 12 months of Sandy Hook and then people just wont tolerate it any more. The media **** storm gets worse with every incident.Ninja-Hippo
Strange, for 90% of people wanting more background checks, you would think more than 47% of people would be angry or disappointed that it didn't pass.
Even more strange that 39% were happy that it didn't pass.
That's quite a bit less than 90%.
Or is my poll taken by the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post too biased?
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="Audacitron"] "I think it should be clear that if anyone involved in this event is approached respectfully by agents of the state, they will submit to arrest without resisting." ^^^From the Facebook posting. When college students or George Clooney does it, it is fine but now it isn't? Master_Live
College students and George Clooney go out protesting with loaded guns?
College students and George Clooney go and do civil disobedience. Just like this group of gun owners if claiming they will do.Okay, first off nice tu quoque. Second, just because both are forms of civil disobedience doesn't mean that everyone who supports the one form of civili disobedience must support the other. George Clooney and college students aren't going out with loaded weapons. People aren't arguing against civil disobedience on principle, they're arguing against 900 people marching out into the streets with loaded weapons because of the potential for danger.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Let's be honest here, all the senate has done with the filibusters is stall the inevitable. 90% of Americans supported background checks. Mass shootings are happening twice a year. People are getting fed up and the Sandy Hook massacre was extremely close to being the final straw. We're literally on the countdown til the inevitable next mass shooting which is statistically likely to occur within 12 months of Sandy Hook and then people just wont tolerate it any more. The media **** storm gets worse with every incident.airshocker
What are universal background checks going to do when someone's mental illness hasn't been reported? Like it wasn't for the guy who shot up the movie theater in Aurora.
I don't think the main problem is that NICS isn't being used. It's that NICS isn't getting the information it needs.
I do support universal background checks, with obvious exceptions for family to family transfers, and a few other select actions. It's ridiculous that a father should have to get a background check for his son to be able to transfer a gun to him, after all.
There will never be a solution that completely removes every gun from the hands of every person who shouldn't own one. But that's not a reason to do nothing. We don't just ignore terrorism because hey, there'll always be some guy with a pressure cooker who can get around the law. You should have to pass a competency test to own a weapon in the same way that we demand you be competent to drive a car.There will never be a solution that completely removes every gun from the hands of every person who shouldn't own one. But that's not a reason to do nothing. We don't just ignore terrorism because hey, there'll always be some guy with a pressure cooker who can get around the law. You should have to pass a competency test to own a weapon in the same way that we demand you be competent to drive a car. Ninja-Hippo
Exactly what would a competency test prove? That they know how to use the weapon? Great that will make it a lot easier to actually shoot somebody with it.
None of the mass shootings as of late would have been stopped by increased background checks or some sort of a firearms training course. So exactly what do you propose?
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Let's be honest here, all the senate has done with the filibusters is stall the inevitable. 90% of Americans supported background checks. Mass shootings are happening twice a year. People are getting fed up and the Sandy Hook massacre was extremely close to being the final straw. We're literally on the countdown til the inevitable next mass shooting which is statistically likely to occur within 12 months of Sandy Hook and then people just wont tolerate it any more. The media **** storm gets worse with every incident.Wasdie
Strange, for 90% of people wanting more background checks, you would think more than 47% of people would be angry or disappointed that it didn't pass.
Even more strange that 39% were happy that it didn't pass.
That's quite a bit less than 90%.
Or is my poll taken by the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post too biased?
Bizarre, but such is the nature of polls. I would say that one Washington post poll is somewhat superceded by their own poll which said 86% were in favor, another from CNN at 83%, another from Quinnipiac at 91% and a CBS poll at 90%.
The poll showing that a sizeable number were happy the bill didn't pass doesn't necesarilly mean they dont support background checks. They may simply have not liked the provisions of that particular bill.
But you're correct to point out the limitations of polls. One is always ready to be contradicted by another.
EDIT: The most amazing one is undoubtedly Gallop, in which almost half of those who said they opposed congress passing gun control legislation said they would support a direct ballot of the exact same law. What the hell?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx
There will never be a solution that completely removes every gun from the hands of every person who shouldn't own one. But that's not a reason to do nothing. We don't just ignore terrorism because hey, there'll always be some guy with a pressure cooker who can get around the law. You should have to pass a competency test to own a weapon in the same way that we demand you be competent to drive a car. Ninja-Hippo
Thankfully owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege.
Which is why this event could be a PR hit. Look at this thread, pretty much everyone expecting this to go bad. I think they know a large portion of the public is looking for then to screw up, they know how bad it would look for all gun owners if a tragedy occurs that they. So they behave nicely and all we get is "patriotic gun owners arrested peacefully while defending the 2nd amendment". Or it could go bonkers, of course :PMaster_LiveDon't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is DEFINITELY going to turn bad (assuming that it even happens at all). But you've gotta admit that there's a big freaking potential for this to turn violent. And when you weigh the potential benefits (good PR) against the potential risks (a bloodbath), the question this guy should be asking himself is "Is it worth it?" I think most people would answer that question with a resounding "no".
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] There will never be a solution that completely removes every gun from the hands of every person who shouldn't own one. But that's not a reason to do nothing. We don't just ignore terrorism because hey, there'll always be some guy with a pressure cooker who can get around the law. You should have to pass a competency test to own a weapon in the same way that we demand you be competent to drive a car. Wasdie
Exactly what would a competency test prove? That they know how to use the weapon? Great that will make it a lot easier to actually shoot somebody with it.
None of the mass shootings as of late would have been stopped by increased background checks or some sort of a firearms training course. So exactly what do you propose?
Medical conditions must be declared before we'll give you a car. You have to take lessons. You have to know some basics about operating a car safely. And you have to sit a test with an examiner to demonstrate that you are capable of holding that responsibility to a minimum standard. We don't let anyone walk into a car dealership and hop behind the wheel and drive away. Why? Because they're a danger to others. The car is registered to them. They have passed reasonable tests to demonstrate that they can own that vehicle safely. Why do we sell guns in the opposite manner? An individual who is mentally unstable and in need of a number of weapons for the purposes of mass murder is unlikely to be able to pass a barrage of tests and checks before acquiring said weapons. If they do, at least you TRIED to stop them rather than the opposite 'who cares about a few dead kids' approach that we take now. If the government is capable of stopping diabetics from driving for the safety of the public, we can take rifles away from schizophrenics.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]There will never be a solution that completely removes every gun from the hands of every person who shouldn't own one. But that's not a reason to do nothing. We don't just ignore terrorism because hey, there'll always be some guy with a pressure cooker who can get around the law. You should have to pass a competency test to own a weapon in the same way that we demand you be competent to drive a car. airshocker
Thankfully owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege.
A "right" is nothing more than a privilege in a suit.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]There will never be a solution that completely removes every gun from the hands of every person who shouldn't own one. But that's not a reason to do nothing. We don't just ignore terrorism because hey, there'll always be some guy with a pressure cooker who can get around the law. You should have to pass a competency test to own a weapon in the same way that we demand you be competent to drive a car. airshocker
Thankfully owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege.
Which is why you're allowed to own your own rocket launcher, sarin gas, barrel of grenades and F-18 Fighter Jet. ...... oh wait!Which is why you're allowed to own your own rocket launcher, sarin gas, barrel of grenades and F-18 Fighter Jet. ...... oh wait!Ninja-Hippo
Pretty sure I said firearm.
[QUOTE="airshocker"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]There will never be a solution that completely removes every gun from the hands of every person who shouldn't own one. But that's not a reason to do nothing. We don't just ignore terrorism because hey, there'll always be some guy with a pressure cooker who can get around the law. You should have to pass a competency test to own a weapon in the same way that we demand you be competent to drive a car. Ninja-Hippo
Thankfully owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege.
Which is why you're allowed to own your own rocket launcher, sarin gas, barrel of grenades and F-18 Fighter Jet. ...... oh wait! Non sequitur. Rights aren't absolute.A "right" is nothing more than a privilege in a suit.
frannkzappa
Irrelevant to the point I was making.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Which is why you're allowed to own your own rocket launcher, sarin gas, barrel of grenades and F-18 Fighter Jet. ...... oh wait!airshocker
Pretty sure I said firearm.
And why do 'rights' only go as far as specifically firearm? Does the constitution not say 'arms'? How can you draw the line at what is your constitutional right and what is a privilege? It's your right to own an AR-15, but up it to an M16 and that becomes a privilege? Isn't that kind of logically arbitrary? If the government can prevent people from having easy access to grenades and M16s for reasons of common sense, why are AR-15s a sacred right?And why do 'rights' only go as far as specifically firearm? Does the constitution not say 'arms'? How can you draw the line at what is your constitutional right and what is a privilege? It's your right to own an AR-15, but up it to an M16 and that becomes a privilege? Isn't that kind of logically arbitrary? If the government can prevent people from having easy access to grenades and M16s for reasons of common sense, why are AR-15s a sacred right?Ninja-Hippo
Because I'm not an idiot. I know the spirit of the amendment and it was never meant to cover tanks, military-grade explosives, fighter jets, and WMDs.
And if we want to get technical about it, so long as an M-16(of any variant) is semi-auto only, it's not an assault rifle.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]And why do 'rights' only go as far as specifically firearm? Does the constitution not say 'arms'? How can you draw the line at what is your constitutional right and what is a privilege? It's your right to own an AR-15, but up it to an M16 and that becomes a privilege? Isn't that kind of logically arbitrary? If the government can prevent people from having easy access to grenades and M16s for reasons of common sense, why are AR-15s a sacred right?airshocker
Because I'm not an idiot. I know the spirit of the amendment and it was never meant to cover tanks, military-grade explosives, fighter jets, and WMDs.
But again, isn't that wholly arbitrary when M16s are not allowed but AR-15s are? When one is essentially just a training-wheels equipped version of the other? When the whole exercise comes down to just drawing a completely arbitrary line where you feel like, the entire 'my sacred right' argument goes out of the window. A person can find it just as absurd for an individual to own their own assault rifle as you find it for someone to propose owning their own explosives.[QUOTE="airshocker"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Which is why you're allowed to own your own rocket launcher, sarin gas, barrel of grenades and F-18 Fighter Jet. ...... oh wait!Ninja-Hippo
Pretty sure I said firearm.
And why do 'rights' only go as far as specifically firearm? Does the constitution not say 'arms'? How can you draw the line at what is your constitutional right and what is a privilege? It's your right to own an AR-15, but up it to an M16 and that becomes a privilege? Isn't that kind of logically arbitrary? If the government can prevent people from having easy access to grenades and M16s for reasons of common sense, why are AR-15s a sacred right?Many people at the time those things were outlawed for sale to the general public did argue that outlawing them is a violation of our rights.
That said, the majority of gun owners are willing to draw a line for the general good of the public. High explosive weaponry and the like was where that line was drawn. Most gun owners will still agree that those things are to be outlawed for the greater good of the public and are willing to accept those laws that infringe on their rights.
Most gun owners are rational and aren't out for blood nor out to overthrow the government. However the line that a large percent of gun owners have drawn is now being challenged and many are not willing to let it slide any further.
There is no reason to not be rational in these debates. Gun owners on average have drawn the line where they'll give and now that is being challenged and many gun owners are now, very predictably, defending the rights they have left and don't want their rights infringed on anymore.
Gun owners reluctantly gave up the right to own legitimate asasult rifles (and the laws that were pased to ban those from private ownership without permit was passed through a loophole) but they aren't willing to give up anything more.
But again, isn't that wholly arbitrary when M16s are not allowed but AR-15s are? When one is essentially just a training-wheels equipped version of the other? When the whole exercise comes down to just drawing a completely arbitrary line where you feel like, the entire 'my sacred right' argument goes out of the window. A person can find it just as absurd for an individual to own their own assault rifle as you find it for someone to propose owning their own explosives.Ninja-Hippo
No. Since military M-16s(I'm not talking about AR-15s modded to look like M-16s) have very different capabilities than AR-15s.
And why do 'rights' only go as far as specifically firearm? Does the constitution not say 'arms'? How can you draw the line at what is your constitutional right and what is a privilege? It's your right to own an AR-15, but up it to an M16 and that becomes a privilege? Isn't that kind of logically arbitrary? If the government can prevent people from having easy access to grenades and M16s for reasons of common sense, why are AR-15s a sacred right?[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="airshocker"]
Pretty sure I said firearm.
Wasdie
Many people at the time those things were outlawed for sale to the general public did argue that outlawing them is a violation of our rights.
That said, the majority of gun owners are willing to draw a line for the general good of the public. High explosive weaponry and the like was where that line was drawn. Most gun owners will still agree that those things are to be outlawed for the greater good of the public and are willing to accept those laws that infringe on their rights.
Most gun owners are rational and aren't out for blood nor out to overthrow the government. However the line that a large percent of gun owners have drawn is now being challenged and many are not willing to let it slide any further.
There is no reason to not be rational in these debates. Gun owners on average have drawn the line where they'll give and now that is being challenged and many gun owners are now, very predictably, defending the rights they have left and don't want their rights infringed on anymore.
Honestly, I'd understand that entirely if anyone was proposing taking their guns away from them. Background checks though? I just don't get why you'd be opposed to that. It's not like it's even a particularly long delay. And sure it wont solve all of our problems, but if we can stop a nutjob from just ordering an AR-15 off the internet surely that's a positive piece of legislation? Not all mental illnesses go reported but an awful lot do. Very few people make it to adulthood with a serious mental condition untreated and unknown to doctors and social services. And we seriously do NOTHING to stop those people acquiring seriously deadly weaponry? But we wont let diabetics drive?Just like last time you're conceding your own argument by going into the petty semantics of how particular guns work. Again, the point is entirely unaffected by the exact specifications of military vs civilian assault rifles. You're going down an utterly pointless road of useless argument for the sake of argument. Run for senate.
Ninja-Hippo
It's not an issue of semantics when these weapons are different. You're speaking to someone who knows the differences in the weapons you're talking about.
So I apologize if you think I'm just trying to pull the semantics card on you, but to me I'm trying to speak with as much accuracy as possible.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]
Just like last time you're conceding your own argument by going into the petty semantics of how particular guns work. Again, the point is entirely unaffected by the exact specifications of military vs civilian assault rifles. You're going down an utterly pointless road of useless argument for the sake of argument. Run for senate.
airshocker
It's not an issue of semantics when these weapons are different. You're speaking to someone who knows the differences in the weapons you're talking about.
So I apologize if you think I'm just trying to pull the semantics card on you, but to me I'm trying to speak with as much accuracy as possible.
Even if that were the case, it's not even accurate. "M16 with training wheels" is how the god-damned NRA described it. Go google a few online gun stores for the AR-15 and you'll find dozens of references to the M16 as a sales pitch. They are not massively different weapons. They are essentially the same weapon modified for two different markets; civillian and military. Yes, one is more lethal than the other. Yes, they are not EXACTLY the same. No, it is not like comparing a rocket launcher to a pistol. It is comparing a pistol to an even better pistol.You're asking me why the government should prevent someone from owning an M16, but allow them to own an AR-15 and I've told you: The M-16 has different firing capabilities that the civilian model AR-15 doesn't.
Honestly, I'd understand that entirely if anyone was proposing taking their guns away from them. Background checks though? I just don't get why you'd be opposed to that. It's not like it's even a particularly long delay. And sure it wont solve all of our problems, but if we can stop a nutjob from just ordering an AR-15 off the internet surely that's a positive piece of legislation? Not all mental illnesses go reported but an awful lot do. Very few people make it to adulthood with a serious mental condition untreated and unknown to doctors and social services. And we seriously do NOTHING to stop those people acquiring seriously deadly weaponry? But we wont let diabetics drive? Ninja-Hippo
Background checks don't cover mental history and there is a very active debate on what's considered a mental illness and what isn't. It's not something easily identifiable nor easily categorized. Depending on who ends up setting these definitions I myself could lose the ability to own a gun because I was diagnosed with ADHD and took medication fro that for a few years back in middle school.
What you really want is some sort of a database built with every person's mental illness. It's a potential major breach of privacy as well as horribly inaccurate because of the very nature of mental illnesses.
What we need to do is enforce current laws. We don't enforce them properly as it is. Private gun store owners who are found to have sold to criminals are not pubished much at all and current laws we have go unenforced.
Even if that were the case, it's not even accurate. "M16 with training wheels" is how the god-damned NRA described it. Go google a few online gun stores for the AR-15 and you'll find dozens of references to the M16 as a sales pitch. They are not massively different weapons. They are essentially the same weapon modified for two different markets; civillian and military. Yes, one is more lethal than the other. Yes, they are not EXACTLY the same. No, it is not like comparing a rocket launcher to a pistol. It is comparing a pistol to an even better pistol. Ninja-Hippo
I don't care what the NRA calls it. As we already discussed, stores will market things in order to make sales. They've always done that.
They are massively different weapons. You can't tell me a weapon that can fire three rounds with every squeeze of the trigger AND fire by simply holding down the trigger is not different than a weapon that can only fire ONE round with every squeeze of the trigger.
[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] They averaged two mass shootings a year until they enacted gun control. There hasn't been a mass shooting since. Gun related crime has also reduced across the board. How much more successful do you want it to be?Ninja-Hippo
As I said, mass shootings are too statistically insignificant. And a general decrease in gun related crime has to be linked to the actual legislation. In the U.S. there has been a significant decrease in shootings since the 1980's however there has been no sweeping gun control measures. Various factors can influence crime.
The papers that I've been looking at do not suggest that the legislation has had much of an effect except to reduce the number of suicides by firearm. People have instead turned to alternative means to kill themselves. The homicide trend was already decreasing before the NFA was implemented. One of the articles I read.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x/abstract
Mass shootings are hugely more common than terrorist attacks - yet we will literally devote billions to invading other countries and implement sweeping security measures at airports to combat the latter. Why is the former deemed too statistically rare to bother doing anything about? Is the attitude honestly that a few dozen murdered kids every year is alright? lol, me a few years ago.why are we shredding two countries, causing untold damage, destruction and death and spending a trillion dollars on a problem that kills 1% of the number of people that slip and fall injuries in north america does do?
ya gotta just laugh right because if you don't you cry.
[QUOTE="airshocker"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]
Just like last time you're conceding your own argument by going into the petty semantics of how particular guns work. Again, the point is entirely unaffected by the exact specifications of military vs civilian assault rifles. You're going down an utterly pointless road of useless argument for the sake of argument. Run for senate.
Ninja-Hippo
It's not an issue of semantics when these weapons are different. You're speaking to someone who knows the differences in the weapons you're talking about.
So I apologize if you think I'm just trying to pull the semantics card on you, but to me I'm trying to speak with as much accuracy as possible.
Even if that were the case, it's not even accurate. "M16 with training wheels" is how the god-damned NRA described it. Go google a few online gun stores for the AR-15 and you'll find dozens of references to the M16 as a sales pitch. They are not massively different weapons. They are essentially the same weapon modified for two different markets; civillian and military. Yes, one is more lethal than the other. Yes, they are not EXACTLY the same. No, it is not like comparing a rocket launcher to a pistol. It is comparing a pistol to an even better pistol.Well with that loose of a comparison made between guns I can conclude that my SKS is pretty much the same gun as my Short Magazine Lee Enfield because they both fire bullets.
Almost every gun has the same components. An AR-15 is similarly styled but is not an M16 due to a lot of critical components that make it function differently.
Again here's where it becomes very difficult to classify firearms because they all work pretty much the same depending on how you describe them.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Even if that were the case, it's not even accurate. "M16 with training wheels" is how the god-damned NRA described it. Go google a few online gun stores for the AR-15 and you'll find dozens of references to the M16 as a sales pitch. They are not massively different weapons. They are essentially the same weapon modified for two different markets; civillian and military. Yes, one is more lethal than the other. Yes, they are not EXACTLY the same. No, it is not like comparing a rocket launcher to a pistol. It is comparing a pistol to an even better pistol. airshocker
I don't care what the NRA calls it. As we already discussed, stores will market things in order to make sales. They've always done that.
They are massively different weapons. You can't tell me a weapon that can fire three rounds with every squeeze of the trigger AND fire by simply holding down the trigger is not different than a weapon that can only fire ONE round with every squeeze of the trigger.
You are outnumbered in opinion. The general consensus is that it's a toned-down version of the military weapon for the civilian market. No, I do not consider full auto and semi-auto to be a MASSIVE HUGE DIFFERENCE at all. Nor does any other reasonable person. Congratulations on diverting the debate to the semantics of how two very similar rifles work away from your weak ass arguments though.[QUOTE="airshocker"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]And why do 'rights' only go as far as specifically firearm? Does the constitution not say 'arms'? How can you draw the line at what is your constitutional right and what is a privilege? It's your right to own an AR-15, but up it to an M16 and that becomes a privilege? Isn't that kind of logically arbitrary? If the government can prevent people from having easy access to grenades and M16s for reasons of common sense, why are AR-15s a sacred right?Ninja-Hippo
Because I'm not an idiot. I know the spirit of the amendment and it was never meant to cover tanks, military-grade explosives, fighter jets, and WMDs.
But again, isn't that wholly arbitrary when M16s are not allowed but AR-15s are? When one is essentially just a training-wheels equipped version of the other? When the whole exercise comes down to just drawing a completely arbitrary line where you feel like, the entire 'my sacred right' argument goes out of the window. A person can find it just as absurd for an individual to own their own assault rifle as you find it for someone to propose owning their own explosives. would a pistol duct taped to a quadcopter be legal? if so, would an attack helicopter with a semi-automatic cannon attached to it be legal?You are outnumbered in opinion. The general consensus is that it's a toned-down version of the military weapon for the civilian market. No, I do not consider full auto and semi-auto to be a MASSIVE HUGE DIFFERENCE at all. Nor does any other reasonable person. Congratulations on diverting the debate to the semantics of how two very similar rifles work away from your weak ass arguments though. Ninja-Hippo
Thankfully opinion isn't fact.
You truly are out of your mind if you don't think full auto is different than semi-auto. I'm sorry, but every single person on the face of this earth knows that.
I mean totally, the police would only have semi-automatic AR-15s in that case. Hell, even the MP5s our SWAT guys use would be semiautomatic. Because they totally are no different than their fully-automatic counterparts.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment