Massachusetts Effectively Bans All Semi-Auto Weapons

Here we go again with the asinine "but you can't fight UCAVs with guns" cliche. Please do tell us about the time you put down a civil uprising with your predator program...

As someone who has more experience with UAVs (perhaps more than anyone here), I can emphatically tell you that notion has no basis in reality. One of the most crucial element in putting down insurgency or internal conflicts among large civilian body is winning the hearts and minds. Deployment of UCAVs runs counter to that core strategy, since it takes the human elements out, making it easier for opposing force to dehumanize the other side, antagonizing the general population. The fact that continue uses of UCAVs in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq have fueled hostility against us in those regions (and even the mounting resistance against its use domestically) is evidence of that. For us (US military), UCAVs are only used for conventional surgical strikes after careful considerations of the benefits versus potential repercussions. So much more so than something less discriminate say, counter battery fire.

Again your logic is that whatever the commonality in crimes are, we need to legislate it. So mass shooters use guns, we ban guns. Drunk drivers consume alcohol, we ban alcohol. Terrorists are Muslims, we ban Muslims. Catching onto the flaw of that logic yet?

The act of giving or selling guns to criminals is illegal. What relevance does how "2nd party got the gun" have? That argument is idiotic. What does it matter how people living in neighborhoods with known drug trades got their money from? What matters is criminals got their money mostly through illegal means, i.e. robbing people or trading for drugs.

What bullshit? You clearly did not comprehend anything I posted. Let's play spot the difference. Here's what snope is claiming to be false: "...Massachusetts implemented a new law banning the sale of all semi-automatic rifles." Here's my title "Massachusetts EFFECTIVELY bans all semi-auto weapons". Nothing in the article contradicts the original link I posted.

While AG did not change the law, but she did effectively ban semi-autos by expanding the definition of "assault weapons". Between AK, AR and the rest of weapons listed by make and model in the Massachusetts "assault weapons", similarity test applies to 99.9% of all semi-auto weapons in the market today. All semi-auto utilize either recoil or gas blowback operations, all of variants are covered in either one or many of the Massachusetts "enumerated weapons". And almost all semi-autos in manufacture today have detachable magazine and it's near impossible to reconfigure for manual or clip load without a complete redesign, which no companies would bother doing for a single state compliance.

You are basically saying if the government refuses to give out license for anyone driving anything with wheels and engines that's not effectively a ban on cars.

That's not accurate at all. AG is expanding the definition of what qualifies as banned product. If the government banned Honda Civics, then later "redefined" the ban to include ANY vehicle that share similarity with a Honda Civic like wheels and engines, how is that simply "stepping up enforcement" and not equate to a ban on virtually all cars in the market?

I said you couldn't?

Figured that in a civil uprising that the military would be split also, with one part on the side of the people, having access to military hardware that had the possibility to take them ( UAV's) out if they were deployed. Also figured that in such a civil uprising that you'd be against the government if you felt they indeed did try to trample on you and your rights.

But to get a little more back on track.

Whatever you do with your gun laws, wether you can only buy handguns, shotguns or hunting rifles in the future, or you can get full auto assault rifles and grenade launchers. Whatever the consequences either way turns out to be in the US, it does not affect me and I honestly don't care anymore either way. I'll crack some jokes or satire comments once In awhile of whatever happens, laugh at them, ignore them or get enraged if you so desire.

*facepalm* You do realize that NRA ultimately supported the no-fly no-buy proposal while many on the left (such as ACLU) opposed such measure due to the extrajudicial nature of those lists right? And how is it NRA's fault? FBI investigated then CLEARED the Orlando shooter. Furthermore, the security company he worked for did extensive background checks on him and found no reason deny him of clearance he needed to carry while on the job.

You know what WOULD have prevented the Orlando tragedy? If Trump gets his way and ban Muslims. Not saying that's my personal stance (in fact, I'm very much against such measure) just trying to expose your hypocrisy of your "trade rights for sense of security"logic.

Actually from your own source it sounds more like they are closing loopholes that allowed manufacturers to skirt the existing law rather than "redefining what an assault rifle means".

-Byshop

Small arms are still effective tools of war but more importantly the symbolism and what it represents is the more important intangible aspect of a conflict. Again guns or any arms is representation of power and they are empowering, reinforcing the individuals will. Think about what mere image of AK47 much less the actual rifle, means to people around the world and how many countries features weapons in their countries flag.

The point is we would never face that scenario, because our second amendment rights or our culture of independence (it's the chick and egg paradox; is our gun culture simply result of our cultural emphasis independence and individualism or the other way around?) ensure our government would never devolve to that point where armed uprising is necessary. In a way, our second amendment safeguard all other constitutionally protected rights.

Gee, thanks, I didn't realize I need your permission to react to your ill informed opinions however I like. [/sarcasm]

Nor do you need to pay a fee to react either, I ain't part of The Fine Bros.

You must be reading a different article or forgot to take off your liberal goggles. TTAG article contained no such implication; it merely states that AG has the power to interpret the language of the law, which is a fact, but it also doesn't change the immediate effect of a virtual ban on all semi-auto guns in that state.

There's no loophole since the language of the law is never explicit in what weapons are banned. If you define loophole as skirting around the spirit of the law then what MA AG is doing is exploiting a "loophole" to our Constitution.

Says someone who brags about his bench PR and how much he makes. I'm sure that kind of school yard dick measuring is super effective among your circle of insecure lift bros.

You crack me up, man. Anyway, I'm all for it.

From your link:

"The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the ColtAR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flashsuppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.

That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers."

Must be my liberal goggles but it seemed pretty clear to me.

-Byshop

*facepalm* you realize that a direct quote from the MA AG right? That's like saying CNN sounds racist because they quoted Trump in an article. Please tell me you understand the difference.

See that's the problem. You're right, its the people, not the guns. This country has an unhealthy obsession with firearms. They're a tool, nothing more. Yet people basically build shrines to celebrate them. Are you kidding me? I myself own a rifle, shotgun and a pistol. I practice with them about twice a year and the rest of them time they stay safely locked away. I don't have 'Guns and Ammo' in my bathroom or on my coffee table. Yet, politicians in this country keep the retards bubbling over with the fear that the evil democrats will take away their guns.

Sounds good to me.

You forgot your accompanying pic:

@bmanva: Nope, not at all. Feel free to use that pic yourself though, you have my permission.

@bmanva:

Like I said, you crack me up.

"you realize that a direct quote from the MA AG right?"

At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to rehash the lyrics of the "Mr. Ed" show, of course, but it's still your source's source. I'm not really interested in trying to interpret an opinion site's interpretation of the law. I read their read on the situation, and then I read each of the sources that your article linked and did some searching myself to make my own determination. Maybe you call that "lib goggles" but I call it "independent thought".

"That's like saying CNN sounds racist because they quoted Trump in an article. Please tell me you understand the difference."

No, it absolutely is not. You seem to think that we're arguing over what your Guns website is trying to say. I'm not. I'm not saying that your TruthAboutGuns website's position mirrors that of the AG because they quoted the AG, I'm saying that having considered all of the positions I found and reading as much data as I found on the topic, I agree with the AG's position on this. I'll consider the position of any opinion blog, but I don't take the opinion of any of them as gospel. I make up my own mind on every situation I look into. Maybe I'll agree and maybe I won't, and in this case I don't. It seems like your position from the start is just echo the opinion of the site you linked to.

What I see here is a modification of the law to close a loophole. What you and the site you linked seem to see is an egregious erosion of civil liberties. I doubt any amount of conversation will bridge the gap between these two positions. You and the site call it "redefining what assault rifles are", but I don't. The gist of this is that after banning assault rifles, gun makers figured out that they could sell "state compliant" versions of their guns that are still basically the same gun. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the idea that if the AR-15 is banned you can still buy an AR-15B which is an identical gun but with a beer holder and straw as really being in the spirit of the law. This sounds to me like closing a loophole.

Now if they did something funky like significantly change what they call an assault rifle to now include something radically different like bolt action rifles or non-clip loading shotguns, then I might agree with you. Banning those weapons would not seem to be in the spirit of the original law banning assault rifles.

-Byshop

Regardless of what it may mean, it is a extremely silly law when the vast majority of gun violence comes from handguns.. Of all the mass shootings (there aren't many) since 1982, only a small handful involved the use of a assault rifle, handguns dominate that figure as well.... I don't particularly like the NRA and much of the gun culture in the United States, but I can at least see that this thing has basically turned into a point scoring competition over anything else.. It is a meaningless ban... It is there simply so politicians can say "See what we did, we did something!" while ignoring the actual really tough problems that both sides have been ignoring for decades for a multitude of reasons.

@bmanva: I am sorry but this is incredibly silly.. Having weapons isn't going to some how stop a government from becoming tyrannical.. If anything, quite often said tyrannies are on the back of popular approval.. Or divide and conquer, which we are seeing in Turkey right now.. Where your little self, even armed, will be isolated in which your own neighbor will turn you in to a secret police division.

Man those pro gun rights advocates were sure in uproar during 2001/2002 when they passed the Patriot Act, giving the government to basically imprison any one with out charges.. This is what blows my mind about this, the most pro second amendment people have fully supported administrations and politicians who passed bills that eroded rights and privacy.

And whether or not it makes sense to ban assault rifles at all bears discussion. I don't have a problem with it. I have a fair number of guns in my collection, but I don't have any practical need for a semi or full auto rifle with a clip. The general consensus among hunters is that hunting with weapons like this is like fishing with dynamite (i.e. overkill). Assault rifles are (specifically be design) more deadly. Accurate at greater range, higher rates of fire, larger ammo, etc. The idea that you can still kill people with smaller weapons doesn't disqualify an AR ban as potentially being a good idea because even if this results in fewer deaths then it's a win. There's pretty much nothing that gets regulated that eliminates all death, but less is a good thing.

-Byshop

That's actually a really good point. If the concern over any gun control is a lack of trust in the government and the fear that one day you might have to take them down because they turned into a dictatorship, maybe it makes more sense to worry about the laws that are put in place that literally might potentially allow them to do that rather than worrying over which specific types of guns you are and aren't allowed to buy anymore.

-Byshop

Are you familiar with due process? If the man was not charged with a crime, his rights can not be removed. Just because the government doesn't like his attitude or opinions does not mean his rights can arbitrarily taken away. There's that pesky Constitution protecting individuals from the government again!

@bmanva said:

@Archangel3371 said:

Sounds good to me.

You forgot your accompanying pic:

Don't be a child.

What "data" from other sources have you looked into? Must be some shoddy research or questionable sources because you are emphatically mistaken on several things. First of all, there's no "modification" of the law, AG office has no authority to make changes to the law. It's a change in how the AG office chooses to interpret the law. Second, assault rifles are not relevant in this discussion. "Assault weapon" is a term anti-gunners came up with to conflate two distinct categories of weapons as denoted by the quotation marks I always contain the term in. Thirdly, this new interpretation doesn't simply restrict virtual clones (or AR-15B with beer holder and straw) of all listed enumerated, but also expands the ban to include almost every semi-auto guns in the market as "your own source make it sound like". Straight out of the snopes article:

"A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate and is therefore a prohibited Assault weapon if it meets one or both of the following tests and is 1) a semiautomatic rifle or handgun that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine, or 2) a semiautomatic shotgun."

Similarity test dictates that "Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons."

Again, between the variants of operating systems that exist among the named banned weapons, ALL forms of semi-auto mechanisms are covered (recoil blowback, direct gas impingement, short stroke piston, long stroke piston etc etc). The reinterpretation of the law results in an effective ban of ANY semi-auto weapons with detachable magazine or ANY semi-auto shotgun period. This again is an EXPANSION of the original AWB. Currently in MA this is an "assault weapon" and banned:

Yes, the analogy is absolutely sound. Your post attempts to misconstrue AG's interpretation of the law in a quote as opinion supported by the site and by extension me. The language are blatantly misleading. If you agree with AG's opinion of the law you would simply state so instead of trying to associate that opinion with the reporting agents' stance of the topic.

@ianhh6 said:

@bmanva said:

@Archangel3371 said:

Sounds good to me.

You forgot your accompanying pic:

Don't be a child.

You express a childish opinion, I will response in kind.

@bmanva said:

@ianhh6 said:

@bmanva said:

@Archangel3371 said:

Sounds good to me.

You forgot your accompanying pic:

Don't be a child.

You express a childish opinion, I will response in kind.

Archangel only said "sounds good to me". His comment was not childish in any way, and just because you don't agree with him does not mean he is childish. Rather, the response you resorted to merely because you don't agree with him is far more childish on your behalf.

Really, it's up to you so do what you please, but now you're just acting immature.

One day we will get enough laws passed to make every place in america as safe as chicago.

Sure, but there are always dissenting voices and the path to totalitarian reign is suppression of those opposing factions. I'm not saying a single armed individual can offer resistance but I'm talking about access to arms for EVERYONE including those dissentients. Surely you would agree that an unarmed populace is much easier to subjugate than an armed one.

That's a gross generalization. Most sensible people are not defined by an single political party on every issues. The reality is more nuanced than that, and nothing is more evident of that than the fact that many Democrats voted for Patriot Act and Obama did not only didn't repeal it but expanded the scope.

For what it's worth I did not support the patriot act.

@ianhh6 said:

@bmanva said:

@ianhh6 said:

@bmanva said:

@Archangel3371 said:

Sounds good to me.

You forgot your accompanying pic:

Don't be a child.

You express a childish opinion, I will response in kind.

Archangel only said "sounds good to me". His comment was not childish in any way, and just because you don't agree with him does not mean he is childish. Rather, the response you resorted to merely because you don't agree with him is far more childish on your behalf.

Really, it's up to you so do what you please, but now you're just acting immature.

Then I suggest you heed your own advice. His response was short and to the point. So is mine. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm childish.

@bmanva: sure dude, just try not to post childish responses.

@bmanva said:

What "data" from other sources have you looked into? Must be some shoddy research or questionable sources because you are emphatically mistaken on several things. First of all, there's no "modification" of the law, AG office has no authority to make changes to the law. It's a change in how the AG office chooses to interpret the law. Second, assault rifles are not relevant in this discussion. "Assault weapon" is a term anti-gunners came up with to conflate two distinct categories of weapons as denoted by the quotation marks I always contain the term in. Thirdly, this new interpretation doesn't simply restrict virtual clones (or AR-15B with beer holder and straw) of all listed enumerated, but also expands the ban to include almost every semi-auto guns in the market as "your own source make it sound like". Straight out of the snopes article:

"A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate and is therefore a prohibited Assault weapon if it meets one or both of the following tests and is 1) a semiautomatic rifle or handgun that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine, or 2) a semiautomatic shotgun."

Similarity test dictates that "Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons."

Again, between the variants of operating systems that exist among the named banned weapons, ALL forms of semi-auto mechanisms are covered (recoil blowback, direct gas impingement, short stroke piston, long stroke piston etc etc). The reinterpretation of the law results in an effective ban of ANY semi-auto weapons with detachable magazine or ANY semi-auto shotgun period. This again is an EXPANSION of the original AWB. Currently in MA this is an "assault weapon" and banned:

Yes, the analogy is absolutely sound. Your post attempts to misconstrue AG's interpretation of the law in a quote as opinion supported by the site and by extension me. The language are blatantly misleading. If you agree with AG's opinion of the law you would simply state so instead of trying to associate that opinion with the reporting agents' stance of the topic.

Again, I'm not trying to tell you what your gun site's opinion is (or yours, since apparently you just use their opinion instead of forming your own since you referred to your opinion as an extension of the site), just quoting the same information that they themselves quoted. I thought that was pretty clear, but sometimes on the internet you really need to spell stuff out so there it is again. If you still believe I was trying to speak for you, well more power to ya I guess.

As for the change of the law I did read the law from the government source site, but it wasn't dated so I wasn't 100% clear on whether this represented a variation to the existing or just a change in how it's enforced. My bad.

As for the distinction between Assault Weapon and Assault Rifle, fine. It's a semantic argument but whatever. How about instead of calling them either, I from now on refer to them as "Banana Hammocks"?

"A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate and is therefore a prohibited Assault weapon if it meets one or both of the following tests and is 1) a semiautomatic rifle or handgun that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine, or 2) a semiautomatic shotgun."

Double check your source. That quote is from the comments section of your source article, not the article itself. Not exactly the best place to get your info. Having looked into it myself, the commenter probably got the quote from here:

http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html

...but you can't take a single snippet out of context and expect to get the whole meaning because there's a bit list of exceptions on both that page and your source article.

"The reinterpretation of the law results in an effective ban of ANY semi-auto weapons with detachable magazine or ANY semi-auto shotgun period."

No, it doesn't. Read your own source. There is a list of specific exceptions, which specifically includes semi-automatic shotguns and banana hammocks with a 5 round or less capacity:

"...provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include:

...

vi. any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or

vii. any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine."

-Byshop

Dude just stop. Come one now.

Except the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm against both. Show me a candidate for repealing Patriot Act and second amendment advocate, he/she will have my vote.

Conversely speaking, if you trust the government implicitly to do everything they do for your safety why not all aspects of your life? There's no difference is asking "why do you need a gun with '30 caliber magazine clips' if you don't intend on mass shooting?" and the question "why do you need privacy if you got nothing hide?".

Why on earth do you think it would be an "all or nothing" proposition? Just because I don't think it's super likely that I'll have to participate in an armed overthrow of the US government after it turns into a nightmarish dictatorship, that doesn't mean I implicitly trust the government in all matters. That's a straw man argument, the idea that if I don't believe ______ then I -must- believe ________. The world is every so slightly more complex than that.

No rights within the country are completely unlimited. I need a car to get to work, but that doesn't make a Formula 500 car a street legal option for my commute. I have to choose from the wide, wide variety of vehicles that are considered safe to use on public roads.

"There's no difference is asking "why do you need a gun with '30 caliber magazine clips' if you don't intend on mass shooting?" and the question "why do you need privacy if you got nothing hide?"."

I don't even know where to start with this one. If you honestly believe this and you aren't being intentionally hyperbolic with a ridiculous example then I don't know where you're coming from but it in no way resembles and kind of logic I'm familiar with.

-Byshop

@Byshop said:

@bmanva said:

What "data" from other sources have you looked into? Must be some shoddy research or questionable sources because you are emphatically mistaken on several things. First of all, there's no "modification" of the law, AG office has no authority to make changes to the law. It's a change in how the AG office chooses to interpret the law. Second, assault rifles are not relevant in this discussion. "Assault weapon" is a term anti-gunners came up with to conflate two distinct categories of weapons as denoted by the quotation marks I always contain the term in. Thirdly, this new interpretation doesn't simply restrict virtual clones (or AR-15B with beer holder and straw) of all listed enumerated, but also expands the ban to include almost every semi-auto guns in the market as "your own source make it sound like". Straight out of the snopes article:

"A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate and is therefore a prohibited Assault weapon if it meets one or both of the following tests and is 1) a semiautomatic rifle or handgun that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine, or 2) a semiautomatic shotgun."

Similarity test dictates that "Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons."

Again, between the variants of operating systems that exist among the named banned weapons, ALL forms of semi-auto mechanisms are covered (recoil blowback, direct gas impingement, short stroke piston, long stroke piston etc etc). The reinterpretation of the law results in an effective ban of ANY semi-auto weapons with detachable magazine or ANY semi-auto shotgun period. This again is an EXPANSION of the original AWB. Currently in MA this is an "assault weapon" and banned:

Yes, the analogy is absolutely sound. Your post attempts to misconstrue AG's interpretation of the law in a quote as opinion supported by the site and by extension me. The language are blatantly misleading. If you agree with AG's opinion of the law you would simply state so instead of trying to associate that opinion with the reporting agents' stance of the topic.

Again, I'm not trying to tell you what your gun site's opinion is (or yours, since apparently you just use their opinion instead of forming your own since you referred to your opinion as an extension of the site), just quoting the same information that they themselves quoted. I thought that was pretty clear, but sometimes on the internet you really need to spell stuff out so there it is again. If you still believe I was trying to speak for you, well more power to ya I guess.

As for the change of the law I did read the law from the government source site, but it wasn't dated so I wasn't 100% clear on whether this represented a variation to the existing or just a change in how it's enforced. My bad.

As for the distinction between Assault Weapon and Assault Rifle, fine. It's a semantic argument but whatever. How about instead of calling them either, I from now on refer to them as "Banana Hammocks"?

"A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate and is therefore a prohibited Assault weapon if it meets one or both of the following tests and is 1) a semiautomatic rifle or handgun that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine, or 2) a semiautomatic shotgun."

Double check your source. That quote is from the comments section of your source article, not the article itself. Not exactly the best place to get your info. Having looked into it myself, the commenter probably got the quote from here:

http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html

...but you can't take a single snippet out of context and expect to get the whole meaning because there's a bit list of exceptions on both that page and your source article.

"The reinterpretation of the law results in an effective ban of ANY semi-auto weapons with detachable magazine or ANY semi-auto shotgun period."

No, it doesn't. Read your own source. There is a list of specific exceptions, which specifically includes semi-automatic shotguns and banana hammocks with a 5 round or less capacity:

"...provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include:

...

vi. any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or

vii. any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine."

-Byshop

Backpedal all you want but it's pretty obvious what the intend of the "your source" statement was.

Sure, semantics to people who either don't know better or purposely muddling separate issues. The legal difference between assault rifle and "assault weapons" (or any other weapons) is pretty clear. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/62rati.pdf I'm surprised that didn't come up with your thorough research on the topic.

You should double check "YOUR source". As I stated that quote is "Straight out of the snopes article", one which you linked. Snopes in turn sourced it from MA AG's own enforcement notice (linked in snopes article). I'm beginning to question your claim about reading those sources...

As for the exceptions, I know of no semi-auto guns that are designed to distinguish magazines with more 5 rounds. If what I know is correct then that particular exception applies to exactly zero rifles out there. For shotguns I stand corrected.

Let's go back to this whole discussion of "loophole" here for a second. Do you honestly that it's the intent of the original AWB to ban the Ruger 10/22 rifle I posted above? Tell me with a straight face STS that you think the term "assault weapon" applies to that rifle. If not then how is this latest reinterpretation NOT an expansion but "closing a loophole"?

"Backpedal all you want but it's pretty obvious what the intend of the "your source" statement was."

Yeah, I -thought- it was obvious which is why I didn't go out of my way to explain it but I guess it wasn't obvious to everyone. But by all means, assume you know my mind better than I do.

Regarding the Snopes article, I misread, but the point still stands. Snopes is no more the source for the law than your link is. You made the same mistake that the commenter I quoted did which is not going straight to the horse's mouth. I find Snopes to be pretty trustworthy overall, but just like with your link I go to -their- sources which is why I got the whole picture, including the exceptions.

Regarding the semi-automatic banana hammocks with a capacity of five rounds or less (not counting my lovely Benelli 12 gauge semi-auto, which holds exactly five shells with the magazine plug removed), even if those kinds of banana hammocks don't exist today then this is the manufacturer's opportunity to make some. They did it before.

But as for the Ruger, sure. Maybe this is an expansion, but it's an expansion to what is in a lot of ways the same kind of banana hammock in terms of what you can do with it. I'm cool with that.

But what this really boils down to is the idea that -any- additional restrictions to gun laws represent an erosion of our personal rights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be where you're coming from, no? Notice how I'm asking and not assuming I know what you were thinking.

-Byshop

That's kind of my point. I'm not sure what you're arguing against? In fact, I explicitly stated such scenario would never take place.

I would agree that there are no absolute rights and that there should be some restrictions in place, but ones based on facts and evidences not one that's based on conjecture and paranoia. I have said many times in the past that if someone had a magic wand that can erase all of the guns and knowledge of such weapons, then I'd be all for it. But that's not how gun control works. The reality is these type of restriction against so called "assault weapons" is a distraction and does nothing to mitigate gun violence as suggested by DOJ's own study of the Federal AWB.

I don't know that your Formula 1/Indy 500 (jesus just pick one) analogy is all that apt considering several things. First of all, you can actually make a Formula 1/Indy 500 street legal, or at least there's nothing in the law that restrict racing features on cars as long as they comply to safety inspection requirements like headlight, turn signals, rear view mirrors etc. Second, driving car on public roads is a privilege granted to you by the state, not a right. Thirdly there's no history of gradual erosion of your ability to choose the type of vehicles you want to take on the road. There's no real political movement to limit cars on performance regardless of speed limit or ban cars based on "racing" looks or components.

Why don't you explain what the difference is then, instead of mock bewilderment?

What a load of horse shit. I'm a totally for sensible laws, but this is just silly.

Oh your gun has a folding stock? BAN!

Oh your gun has something mean looking on the end of the barrel? BAN!

Oh your gun comes in black? BAN BAN BAN!!!!!!!!!!

Is that really an accurate analogy? They're not saying "ban honda civics" and going to "ban all cars"; they're saying "ban honda civics" and are now saying "Ban all Honda civils, the car that is 98% identical to the civic except it is 2 inches shorter." I mean the only reason the Honda Civil exists (not a real car, obviously...) is to get around the law that bans Civics.

Likewise, they're not going from "Ban AR15s and AK47s" to "Ban all guns"; they're going from "ban AR15s and AK47s" to "ban guns that are and are like and basically are AR15s and AK47s.

Gotta fight fire with fire, yeah? Gun makers skirt the laws, law makers need to broaden the laws in response.

They did what before? No states have ever attempted to ban semi-autos with detachable magazines even in extreme anti-gun states like California and New Jersey. AFAIK no manufacturer ever made or even designed a semi-auto handgun or rifle with permanent, internal magazine of 5 or less rounds as a result of state gun law compliance. It's unlikely they ever will if MA remain the only states to implement this measure. But even in the unlikely event that the manufacturers do design and make an exclusive MA compliant semi-auto, that will take time. And fact is, between now and if that gun come to market, semi-auto handguns and rifles are banned for sale in MA.

You might be cool with it, but that's a short sighted perspective. If it's an expansion beyond what the original law was intended for, then what we have is AG circumventing the limitation of their office to effect the law. We have established that AG office has no authority in modifying or changing state statute but if they can shift the scope to beyond the spirit of the law then they effective have the ability of changing it. I guess you can say that's a loophole in need of closing.

I don't know. Are you coming from the position that -any- additional restrictions to gun laws is acceptable as long it's done in the name of public safety (despite the lack of evidence to support it)?

There's no specific metrics outlined in AG's reinterpretation. The only qualifier to pass the similarity test is that "if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons." Given that just about every type of semi-auto "operating system and firing mechanism" are covered in the weapons listed in the original banned "assault weapon list" the language effective allows MA AG to charge anyone buying or selling 99.9% of semi-autos in the market currently. You just brought a Ruger 10/22? You get to go to jail because this gun is an "assault weapon":

"law makers need to broaden the laws in response". Sounds great except AG office is not in a position to make laws.

That's an issue I always struggle with when these debates come up. I'm not going to touch the immediate issue at hand, but I do feel like the utility of gun ownership to protect against tyranny from the govt ended LONG ago. At this point, the right to bear arms seems, in truth, nothing more than a luxury; @bmanva basically hit this point above, although from an anti-gun control perspective and maybe unintentionally: they are almost a luxury, either for decoration, to support a hobby (like hunting or simply marksmanship for its own sake), or for illegally killing others. The idea that they protect us from the govt in this era is antiquated and grounded in delusion. Can one man with an AR-15 kill a bunch of cops or even troops who try to "oppress" him? Sure. What about a posse with AR-15s? Sure. But if the govt wanted to kill you and your mob they can kill you... and your shiny deathbringers are not going to stop them.

You know nothing of Chicago, you are just repeating right wing talking points. I live there, the crime is isolated to segregated communities. I can assure you the white blond haired yuppy women I see pushing strollers everyday are not in danger.

Could easily get hit by a car. Many drivers in Chicago dont yield to pedestrians or cyclists for that matter.

It would depend on the size of the mob and the willingness of the military to attack their own people.

Would it be too much to ask of you to list an actual right?

Irony is that the mentality that bearing arms is no longer necessary is the real luxury here. If you came up in a safe and protected environment, then of course you are going to question the necessity of weapons or even violence in today's world. But fact is, human nature is unchanging, the civility you know and grew up in is a frail facade maintained by violence or threat of violence. People like you are like the Elois unaware of the brutal reality that sustain your sheltered existence.

I don't know how much real world experience you have in fighting wars or governing, not any from the sound of it. But I want to address couple of misconceptions you have stated. Effectiveness of second amendment in warding off tyranny doesn't actually derive from practical deployment of arms but how it empowers the individual and reinforce a sense of independence. This is why in a later post, I discussed the association with the unique American cultural identity and our emphasis on individualism and independence from the government (where as civilian bodies of most other countries tend to have an implicit trust in their governmental structures). Although admittedly I don't actually know whether our gun culture is natural result of that or it supports that sense as I've claim earlier. As Sun Tzu (I suppose you are going to tell me that's an "antiquated" example?) have stated wars are won and lost in the heart not the battlefield. As I stated before arms are representation of power. There's a very good reason that a commonality among oppressive regime is strict control of arms among their respective populace. It robs them both the means and the WILL to fight. And ruling bodies ALWAYS had the capability to kill any individual or group of individuals among their subjects. Not sure why you believe this is something new. Revolutionary war were initially fought between an professional army with almost limitless resources and colonial militias who were no more than armed farmers. No doubt most people of the era gave no more chance to the American colonists than you gave to a hypothetical civilian uprising today. And such examples of successful insurgency extends well into the modern ages.