Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Elegiac]

How anyone could seriously doubt if they can go this. When they already did this once. Is simply rejecting reality. My last post for night on here. If you want you're counter parts to be honest in debate and not ignoring questions as some posters put it. Then Start by being honest with yourself.

It was already done, and ineffective. So...yeah. That's all there is to it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"Obscenely expensive" is equivocable to a gun ban for most people. I would argue that because a law forcing people to do this would favor the wealthy, it is prohibited by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Well then I would disagree with the "obscenely expensive" part of it.

And no, you don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to have a car without insurance. So that analogy is rather specious in this case.

You also don't have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own a gun without insurance, until such a time as an amendment is made that prohibits any kind of tax or fee as unconstitutional. If a law is passed which requires liability insurance be taken out on every gun owned, that is in no way infringing your right to bear arms. A perfect example of this is the right to vote, and the right to vote without paying a fee or poll tax. Such an equivalence does not (yet) exist in regard to firearms.

[Skroe]

in other words you want to ban guns.

I actually want to repeal the 2nd Amendment entirely, just like the 18th Amendment was repealed. One day. Not any day soon. But one day. I want this birth defect in our Constitution to go the way of the 3/5ths clause.

But I'll honestly take what I can get in the short term. I want to win and I want gun owners to know they lost. What's different this time is that Gun owners have having to fight on so many fronts, they can't possibly win on all of them. Some things will get through just due to the sheer mass of it all. And at the very least the more productive, populated, educated and richer states of the union will have stronger state laws while the more backwards ones won't. That's a medium-term outcome I can live with. My state, Massachusetts, is going to have extremely strict laws.

But mostly, I want gun laws to go after people. I want gun ownership to be odious. I want the cost of ownership to be so high and the downside so absurd, even if its on the state level, that it disincentivizes and eventually stigmatizes gun ownership.

The way gun ownership comes to its long overdue end in this country is to make gun ownership an article of shame. To make them the province of survivalists and the paranoid. The way to start with that is to make gun ownership frustrating. This is part of the MORAL case for Gun Ownership Abolition. Owning a gun, a tool of death, should be manifestly immoral.

The Second Amendment may guarantee gun ownership. But it says nothing about it being easy. Or cheap. So lets make you choose between your college fund or your AR-15. You are perfectly free to choose the AR-15.

[breadisfunny]

because criminals never use guns....right? right? gun ownership will never go away.

[FusedMass]

It was already done, and ineffective. So...yeah. That's all there is to it.

No it's not. You do understand the Supreme Court could easily re-vist this case. I sincerely do not think you understand this. Obama passes a law on weapons. Just like Bill signed into a series of laws. Of course Republicans will protest it as unconstitutional. The same way they did with the first one. The case then goes to the supreme court to decide.

All it takes is Obama signing an executive order or passing an assault weapon ban in congress to pass. Then someone to protest it. That's all it takes for the court to hear if assault weapons ban are constitutional or not. How could you boast about how much information you know. Then boast I am pulling information out of my ass when you either flat out deny or unable to understand how laws work.

Let posts like this be a reminder to certain people when they ask me direct questions and they accuse me of trying to dodge it. This is a classic example someone on Pro Gun side refusing either intentionally or unintentionally that the Supreme court would ever hear this case again. I do not want hear more comments like "why are you dodging questions" when twice questioned ..they have refused to deny reality.

Looks like my youtube video is done. Night all for the night.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"Criminals will always get their hands on guns so why ban them?"

"Violent people will always be violent, so why make assault illegal?"
"Robbers will always rob people, so why make robbery illegal?"
"Murderers will always murder, so why make murder illegal?"

[Skroe]

because criminals never use guns....right? right? gun ownership will never go away.

I don't care if criminals use guns or not. That's what the police are for. If you have a crime problem, hire more cops. Let's look at Baghdad. It positively refutes the guns = safety case. A city with 90% household gun-ownership didn't get safer when more people got MORE guns. It got MORE DANGEROUS. It got safer when security and police forces started to mature and the US Military started to patrol on foot, like, you know.... cops.

I care about the idea private citizens owning tools of death. That is what a gun is. It is designed to bring death, mostly in human beings. That is why they were created. The idea that human beings should have easy access to a tool to kill other human beings with such efficiency (which separates it from knives, which are not efficient) is abhorrent to me. It's immoral. I view it as primitive as cave men worshiping a bear skull. If I have a crime problem, I call the police. That is what civilized societies do.

And I utterly mock the notion that guns secure our freedom. Completely. It's the biggest joke of all. Ask Al Qaeda and the Taliban how men with guns faire against men with drones. And the idea men with guns storming a statehouse to stop legislators who are "tyrannical" in their opinion? Because the rule of the gun prevailing over the rule of law is exactly what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have wanted, am I right?

And I truly think gun ownership will go away. One day. Slowly. In our own way. We've followed a kind of standardized "western model" on pretty much every major policy over the last 90 years, from the development of social democracy to financial reform to civil rights, to human rights standards. Even today, after 50 years of being the outlier, Americans are slowing turning against Capital Punishment of all things. And to top it off, we just got universal healthcare.

I think along the same paradigm, Americans will turn against guns the same way they are turning against the Death Penalty, against institutionalized racism, against "no universal healthcare", and so forth. There is nothing special about guns in this respect. It's just another gradual wall to demolish.

Then we'll be more like our first world brethren, who don't have heavily armed citizens living out the fantasies.

[Cthulhu 2020]

And to top it off, we just got universal healthcare.

Sorry, this part made me cringe. The health care reform is a bastardized and unhealthy compromise that does jack all. It needs to be taken down, rebuilt into REAL universal healthcare and pushed through.

The rest I can in sentiment agree with. Guns do not ensure freedom, as is made clear by most other countries with a high gun-per-capita number that rank so low on freedom.

[lockedout]

Heard an idea I liked a lot today.... gun owners should be forced to take out insurance against gun ownership accidents, just like car owners are compelled to buy car insurance.

I agree with this idea completely and it should scale based on number of guns. It should also be obscenely expensive.

There is a big difference.

Having a license is a privilege.

[Skroe]

Sorry, this part made me cringe. The health care reform is a bastardized and unhealthy compromise that does jack all. It needs to be taken down, rebuilt into REAL universal healthcare and pushed through.

The rest I can in sentiment agree with. Guns do not ensure freedom, as is made clear by most other countries with a high gun-per-capita number that rank so low on freedom.

Oh i agree with that. In fact i think spreading-the-cost healthcare is the dumbest thing in the world, because the real problem is that market forces in no way control prices, and we should instead adopt the extremely successful Japanese model of mandating prices (price controls).

But Obama care is argument wise, close enough, and far away enough from where we were, to be valid in my opinion.

---------- Post added 2013-02-22 at 07:23 AM ----------

There is a big difference.

Having a license is a privilege.

Cheap guns are not a right though. Gun ownership being cheap is a privilege.

[lockedout]

Oh i agree with that. In fact i think spreading-the-cost healthcare is the dumbest thing in the world, because the real problem is that market forces in no way control prices, and we should instead adopt the extremely successful Japanese model of mandating prices (price controls).

But Obama care is argument wise, close enough, and far away enough from where we were, to be valid in my opinion.

---------- Post added 2013-02-22 at 07:23 AM ----------



Cheap guns are not a right though. Gun ownership being cheap is a privilege.

Says who? They should be expensive just cuz?

[Grizzly Willy]

It never said that it has to be easy for you to exercise your first amendment rights.

[Alexeht]

But mostly, I want gun laws to go after people. I want gun ownership to be odious. I want the cost of ownership to be so high and the downside so absurd, even if its on the state level, that it disincentivizes and eventually stigmatizes gun ownership.

So pretty much, you want only gangs/mafia to have guns? And actually give them another business, because you don't need tax stamp for mac-10 from your street dealer. Making cost high you will only make black market bigger.

The way gun ownership comes to its long overdue end in this country is to make gun ownership an article of shame. To make them the province of survivalists and the paranoid. The way to start with that is to make gun ownership frustrating. This is part of the MORAL case for Gun Ownership Abolition. Owning a gun, a tool of death, should be manifestly immoral.

Ok but next time you will buy Kitchen "Tool of Death" Knife remember to get frustrated (lol), because who knows if you will slice tomatoes or someone throat? Really I got enough blaming guns for theirs owners sins (you can strangle someone using your hands - that mean you should get your both hands chopped off?) ...

---

Anyway I'm not from USA, but I know that restriction of the law in that matter can only harm. Your country have so long history of gun laws that you cannot just flip it like a coin.

[Elegiac]

Cheap guns are not a right though. Gun ownership being cheap is a privilege.

Gun ownership (period) is defined constitutionally as an inherent liberty. Proposing measures designed to restrict that is in effect, the same as using a poll tax to discourage voters, and equally as repugnant.

Just because you don't like guns doesn't mean you have to ban them. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible.

---------- Post added 2013-02-22 at 12:00 AM ----------

I don't care if criminals use guns or not. That's what the police are for. If you have a crime problem, hire more cops. Let's look at Baghdad. It positively refutes the guns = safety case. A city with 90% household gun-ownership didn't get safer when more people got MORE guns. It got MORE DANGEROUS. It got safer when security and police forces started to mature and the US Military started to patrol on foot, like, you know.... cops.

Socioeconomic differences are socioeconomic. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of gun owners do -not- commit violent crimes; and as we have seen in Australia, gun bans have very little to no effect on the occurence of gun violence.

I care about the idea private citizens owning tools of death. That is what a gun is. It is designed to bring death, mostly in human beings. That is why they were created. The idea that human beings should have easy access to a tool to kill other human beings with such efficiency (which separates it from knives, which are not efficient) is abhorrent to me. It's immoral. I view it as primitive as cave men worshiping a bear skull. If I have a crime problem, I call the police. That is what civilized societies do.

Yeah, and in the time the cops take to get there you may be raped, beaten, robbed, or dead already. That's if you can even call for the police; private gun ownership helps level the playing field between vitcim and aggressor.

And I truly think gun ownership will go away. One day. Slowly. In our own way. We've followed a kind of standardized "western model" on pretty much every major policy over the last 90 years, from the development of social democracy to financial reform to civil rights, to human rights standards. Even today, after 50 years of being the outlier, Americans are slowing turning against Capital Punishment of all things. And to top it off, we just got universal healthcare.

Doubt it.

I think along the same paradigm, Americans will turn against guns the same way they are turning against the Death Penalty, against institutionalized racism, against "no universal healthcare", and so forth. There is nothing special about guns in this respect. It's just another gradual wall to demolish.

Comparing private gun ownership to the death penalty and institutionalized racism is quite specious.

[PhaelixWW]

Time to play catch-up...

It also said assault weapons crime did decline after the ban...lets repeat that.. assault weapons crime did decline. They cannot say for certain if less people were killed but they admit the number of cases where this weapon was used dropped.

Isn't that proof it had more then no impact.

Not really, no. Whether or not assault weapon crimes go down really isn't the issue here. Since any lack of an assault weapon would more than likely just turn into the use of another, equally lethal firearm.

But, he said, the reduction in the use of assault weapons was “offset through at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other semi-automatics equipped with large-capacity magazines.”

Now Obama wants to ban assult weapons AND High Capity Magazines.

Well, Fused, if you'd bother to do some real research, you might found out that the 1994 AWB already banned both assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

How many times can this be repeated. It's impossible to know if it will have any impact without putting it into law in the first place.

First of all, it's been "put into law" before. That's what we've been talking about. So you can't hide from discussions about how the first AWB failed by saying that we can't know anything until another one is tried.

At the end of day. Pro Gun people will fiercely cling to whatever shred of hope their side offers while flat out ignoring all the other information and factors. Tunnel Vision I call it.

Funny. I think that more accurately applies to you. Hanging onto "coulds" and "maybes" for justification for a second try at the same thing, while ignoring the evidence of the lack of effectiveness of the first try is a prime example of tunnel vision.

Where am I insulting. I'm firmly stating that was reflected in the report that it would have a modest impact.

Re-read that line again:

But there is [some] evidence to [suggest] that it [may] have [modestly] [reduced] shootings [had it been in effect for a longer period].

This statement is couched in so many vague conditionals that it can't be taken as evidence or proof of anything.

Let me repeat that the person said it would have an impact the gun ban if it was given time to mature.

No. The report didn't say that it would. It said that it might.

It also goes on to suggest the rise of high capacity magazines could also be to blame.

A rise in the use of high capacity magazines... during a ban on high capacity magazines would seem to indicate the lack of effectiveness of said ban, would it not?

By their own report fewer crimes with this weapon having an effect is proof. Saying it was ineffective when it did pervent some murders at low percent they may be is still effective.

Fewer assault weapon shooting deaths doesn't mean fewer shooting deaths. If a guy grabs a different semi-automatic rifle or even a handgun instead of an assault weapon, and ends up killing the same amount of people, then the ban didn't have an effect on the homicide rate.

They want me to wave my hand and magically show a bullet proof report. (No pun intended) only way to do that is to let the bans go through then research if it had any impact.

And yet you ignore the findings of the research report made after the last ban. And the sheer stupidity of the "we need to pass the ban to see if it's effective" argument is staggering.

You said the Ban was ineffective. Go back and read what you wrote. Ineffective as in meaning having no effect.

That's not what ineffective means. Ineffective doesn't mean no effect at all, it means no meaningful effect; not having the intended effect.

Also the design of assault weapon is awkward and clumsy for self defense makes a poor argument for using that instead of a hand gun you can easily aim and weight is lighter then then AR-15 which further drives why people need this weapon at all.

This is so utterly ridiculous. You claim that assault weapons are "awkward and clumsy" and yet still try to argue that they're more dangerous than any other firearms and should therefore be banned. So which is it? If they're awkward and clumsy, then there's no reason to ban them. If they're more efficient and easier to use, then they're good for home defense.

You're just changing your tune to fit the argument, which just shows that you don't have an effective defense to your position.

You said and I quote "You refuse to acknowledge previous ban was ineffective" I thought we discussed this. It was effective just not in the hopes people had for it.

Oh, FFS.

in·ef·fec·tive
adjective /inifektiv/
1: not producing an intended effect
2: not capable of performing efficiently or as expected

Boom. Lawyered.

There is a very good reason I'm sure why this ban took place in 1994 asking me to repeat those talking points when you can flip on the news and see for yourself is dishonest.

Ignoring the even better reasons why the ban was allowed to expire in 2004 is even more dishonest.

Here's a good article about the effects of the 1994 assault weapon ban:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-one-post/

From that article:

There was, however, an important exception. Any assault weapon or magazine that was manufactured before the law went into effect in 1994 was perfectly legal to own or resell. That was a huge exception: At the time, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons and more than 24 million high-capacity magazines in private hands.

So if 1.5 million assault weapons was enough to stymie a 10-year ban, and considering that there are an estimated 5-30 million firearms that would be classified as assault weapons under the proposed ban, how long do you think the new ban would be stymied before it became "effective"?

And considering the substitution effect and the ready availability of handguns and other non-"assault weapon" semi-automatic rifles, what makes you think that there'd be an effect at all, even after 30+ years?

Now try changing out 8-10$ pack with 800-1000$ pack, do you think people will still buy and consume them in large quanities. A price increase will lower the demand. Economics_101.

A price too far above the material cost of the highly demanded item will drive the manufacture and sales of said items into the underground economy. Black Market Economics 101. Then only criminals will have access to cheap assault weapons. Sounds like a win, huh?

"We have to speak for those 20 beautiful children who died 69 days ago, 12 miles from here," Biden said. "We have to speak for the voice of those six adults who died trying to save the children in their care that day who can't speak for themselves. You have to speak for the 1,900 people who have died at the other end of a gun just since Sandy Hook in this country."

"Fewer children will die," Biden said.

Is it just me, or is this a grotesque appeal to emotion? Did he just "think of the children" us?

Actually I have proved that Gun Control would save life's. If we had Gun Control that didn't expire and was strengthen. I very much doubt that kid would got his hands on a weapon capable of bursting so many bullets.

You've proven nothing of the kind. I mean, he did get his hands on a weapon... multiple weapons... capable of just the same rate of fire. Or are you forgetting that he had two handguns with him? Handguns that fire just as fast, and would still be legal under a "strengthened" AWB.

Killing so many innocents in a short period of time.

Short period of time, you say. Hah. You're forgetting again that he had twenty fracking minutes to shoot up classrooms to his heart's content.

26 victims. 20 minutes. He killed an average of one person every 46 seconds. Well. I guess it's sure an unlucky thing that he had a firearm capable of such a high rate of fire, huh? Too bad he wasn't limited to those handguns. I hear that it takes an average of 2 minutes per victim with a handgun. /sarcasm

Why do we even have weapons capable of shooting a hundred bullets at once.

Le sigh. "A hundred bullets at once"? You mean a hundred rounds in a minute, of course. It'd be easier to take you seriously if you weren't screwing up your statements left and right.

But to iterate for what seems like the thousandth time: All semi-automatics are capable of the same rate of fire. The vast majority of handguns, which you agree can't be banned, do the same thing.

Argue all you like those children are still dead in the ground because we decided to let people have whatever weapon they want and that easy access lead to that Kid taking those weapons and killings 20 kids. That is not an appeal to emotion that is fact.

No. Those kids are dead because one crazy man made the decision to end their lives. Not because of the tool used. If the tool were the more important factor, then you wouldn't have 99.99% of them not being used to kill someone.

And according to gun enthusiasts, a pistol grip is just cosmetic. It has no implications on the actual gun. So yeah, ability to buy the gun is not restricted.

Seriously? I know you're not an idiot, so you have to see the ridiculousness of your statement. Cosmetic features make a difference in far more ways to the consumer than sheer effectiveness.

What if there was a law that mandated that all cars had to be painted a split pea diarrhea color? I mean, it's just cosmetic, so it doesn't change the function of the car. So that law shouldn't be objectionable, right?

There's a huge divide between saying that pistol grips are a desirable feature and saying that they increase the lethality of the firearm. You don't invalidate the first by invalidating the second. It's not an either/or thing.

I get a good chuckle every time someone says that the Feinstein bill bans pistol grips and folding stocks. We know what extremely bias major news network they listen to who has said that, who also conveniently forgot to mention the rest of the bill. But they tend to make fun of the pistol grip/folding stock part because that makes the bill look stupid (so long as they conveniently leave out the rest of the bill).

What the hell are you talking about? I, for one, get my information directly from the text of Feinsten's bill, from her own website. And it says exactly that. What "rest of the bill" are you referring to? I mean, 96 of the 122 pages are the monstrosity of an appendix listing all the "exemptions" that aren't even exemptions because they don't meet the characteristics of the ban in the first place. So 3/4 of the content of the bill is simply a "hey, look, I'm specifically giving you permission to buy these 2200 firearms even though they have nothing to do with assault weapons!"

Need to ban them harder.

Hrm. Maybe if we just repeated every word of the bill twice it would be more effective? I guess it's worth a shot!

With all due respect isn't it up for the Supreme Court to decide this and not arm chair defenders of Pro Gun Rights.

Your position is that we should allow the ban just so that we can let the SCOTUS determine its Constitutionality? That we can't debate the issue until we allow that to happen? What a bass-ackwards way of doing things. Thankfully, the world doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.

The purpose of the SCOTUS isn't to determine what laws should be made. On the contrary, their mandate is to evaluate the laws and decide which ones shouldn't have been made and thus correct the errors of the Legislative Branch of government. You might as well be advocating someone to stop arguing their criminal defense at trial and instead wait until after the conviction to argue their case during appeal.

I see Assault weapons as very dangerous.

Your ability to evaluate the danger of a classification of firearms that you've repeatedly been unable to consistently get correct is extremely suspect.

A weapon capable of being switched to semi auto-ma tic to fully Automatic.

Case in point.

What you've just described isn't an assault weapon. Selective-fire firearms are subject to the NFA, a fact that people have been pointing out to you for literally hundreds of pages. Anything capable of a fully automatic fire mode is, by every single iteration of legal definition, not an assault weapon.

The only reason that law is even expired because congress failed to re-new it.

I'll point out for the... whatever time, for those readers who haven't read it yet, that Congress failed to pass proposed AWB legislation in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008. That's a lot of "only" reasons.

Heard an idea I liked a lot today.... gun owners should be forced to take out insurance against gun ownership accidents, just like car owners are compelled to buy car insurance.

I agree with this idea completely and it should scale based on number of guns. It should also be obscenely expensive.

Not that your posts have any real validity per a reasonable discussion, as you've stated your out-and-out desire to wage war on all firearm ownership, but I'll repost something from earlier:

Insurance for firearms is such a ridiculous idea. The whole point of insurance is to spread the cost of accidents evenly. Intentional damage isn't covered by insurance, it's counted as a fraudulent claim. To make all legal gun owners pay for the cost of people who intentionally commit acts of violence is as immoral as it is disgusting.

Seriously whats wrong with admitting the truth. How can anyone have a sincere debate when they cannot be honest about basic things that everyone knows.

Pardon me while I choke on my own laughter. You've steadfastly refused to acknowledge many truths, despite data proving the inaccuracy of your statements, on numerous occasions. I couldn't think of a more appropriate question to ask you if I tried.

The first assault weapon ban took place in 1994. They DID ban assault weapons.

Now they did strike down PART...not ALL the ban because it related to Hand Guns in Heller Case.

More incorrect statements. First, you should get your timeline straight. DC v. Heller was in 2008 and had nothing to do with the already-expired Federal AWB. Second, the case had to do with a handgun ban, not an assault weapons ban, so there's no real legally distinct overlap between the two.

How anyone could seriously doubt if they can go this.

You like to repeat yourself about this a lot, but I don't really see anyone saying that the SCOTUS doesn't have the power to rule on this, only that they're personally confident of what the result would be. There's a big difference between someone saying "That'll never happen" and "Legally, that cannot happen". One is an implied opinion and the other is a statement of fact.

But understanding that would rid you of your current favorite whipping post, so I don't expect you'll get it.

"Criminals will always get their hands on guns so why ban them?"

"Violent people will always be violent, so why make assault illegal?"
"Robbers will always rob people, so why make robbery illegal?"
"Murderers will always murder, so why make murder illegal?"

I'll repeat something I posted earlier:

So we should only pass laws criminals would abide by?

This talking point has never made any sense.

As a statement by itself, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But taken in the particular context of this proposed ban, it does. The main difference is that most laws only punish the guilty, so even if criminals wouldn't abide by them, they're still worth passing.

This proposed ban, on the other hand, would punish the innocent along with the guilty, all in the guise of prevention. I mean, there are already plenty of laws about killing people, waving guns around, taking them into schools, etc. This ban wouldn't make it more easy to prosecute those criminals, so its only purpose is prevention.

In that kind of context, then yeah, the fact that only the law-abiding would comply with the law makes it rather pointless, don't you think?

[Sicarus]

I actually want to repeal the 2nd Amendment entirely, just like the 18th Amendment was repealed. One day. Not any day soon. But one day. I want this birth defect in our Constitution to go the way of the 3/5ths clause.

But I'll honestly take what I can get in the short term. I want to win and I want gun owners to know they lost. What's different this time is that Gun owners have having to fight on so many fronts, they can't possibly win on all of them. Some things will get through just due to the sheer mass of it all. And at the very least the more productive, populated, educated and richer states of the union will have stronger state laws while the more backwards ones won't. That's a medium-term outcome I can live with. My state, Massachusetts, is going to have extremely strict laws.

But mostly, I want gun laws to go after people. I want gun ownership to be odious. I want the cost of ownership to be so high and the downside so absurd, even if its on the state level, that it disincentivizes and eventually stigmatizes gun ownership.

The way gun ownership comes to its long overdue end in this country is to make gun ownership an article of shame. To make them the province of survivalists and the paranoid. The way to start with that is to make gun ownership frustrating. This is part of the MORAL case for Gun Ownership Abolition. Owning a gun, a tool of death, should be manifestly immoral.

The Second Amendment may guarantee gun ownership. But it says nothing about it being easy. Or cheap. So lets make you choose between your college fund or your AR-15. You are perfectly free to choose the AR-15.

Maybe you should move to Russia?

Seriously dude, you're rather, insane.

---------- Post added 2013-02-22 at 08:33 AM ----------

Let posts like this be a reminder to certain people when they ask me direct questions and they accuse me of trying to dodge it. This is a classic example someone on Pro Gun side refusing either intentionally or unintentionally that the Supreme court would ever hear this case again. I do not want hear more comments like "why are you dodging questions" when twice questioned ..they have refused to deny reality

Except, when I did question one of your posts, rather politely I may add, you said you'd answer it, "with pleasure", when I pointed out the post, you jumped down my throat fast and still flat out refused to answer it, then berated me with veiled insults.

[Tinykong]

All it takes is Obama signing an executive order or passing an assault weapon ban in congress to pass.

An executive order restricting Constitutionally protected rights...

I doubt the SCOTUS ever hears this case, because I don't see Congress being able to pass it.

[FusedMass]

Time to play catch-up...


Not really, no. Whether or not assault weapon crimes go down really isn't the issue here. Since any lack of an assault weapon would more than likely just turn into the use of another, equally lethal firearm.

Again. You. Don't. Know. That. Even if they did switch to a hand gun. The assault weapons were designed to shoot the most possible bullets in shortest amount of time. The objective is to reduce the body count while providing you with a weapon to defend yourself. You can't put an AR-15 under the bed because of its size. You cannot take it outside without it being revealed. It weighs too much and it's bulky. It's both dishonest and illogical to say that an assault weapon capable of spraying a hundred bullets in under a minute is on par with a handgun with 30 bullets in it.

Time to play catch-up...
Well, Fused, if you'd bother to do some real research, you might found out that the 1994 AWB already banned both assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

As far as I know..everything was fine. The Gov did not try to steal you're weapons did it. In fact by you just admitting that it went through the first time. Shows to Naysayers it is capable of banning them. They did it before. They only struck down PART of the law because it related to handguns and that's protected by right to defend yourself aka right to bear arms. They refused to define an assault weapon leaving it open to interpretation by the states

It's exactly the reason so many people were able to get around the ban because no one law clearly defined what it was. Let me repeat that..no single law defined what it was as in supreme court never did that nor even President Obama..yet.

First of all, it's been "put into law" before. That's what we've been talking about. So you can't hide from discussions about how the first AWB failed by saying that we can't know anything until another one is tried..

Again it did not fail. It wasn't given time to mature. The old weapons from the ban were still out there. Fact Hand Guns make up more of the crime the fact less crimes took place with an assult weapon shows it did have some effect..that being less people died. You keep pointing to this even if it did have a massive effect.

You'd STILL be against it. People here are against even accepting the reality the supreme court might hear the case again. I very seriously doubt you would care either way what the data said. At least be honest about that part.

Funny. I think that more accurately applies to you. Hanging onto "coulds" and "maybes" for justification for a second try at the same thing, while ignoring the evidence of the lack of effectiveness of the first try is a prime example of tunnel vision.

That's you're first warning. The second and you go back into Ignore Land again. You know the first time after you screamed to high heavens. I am no longer entertaining personal insults.

Re-read that line again:

This statement is couched in so many vague conditionals that it can't be taken as evidence or proof of anything.

In you're point of view. Unless the President called you up and personally gave you the aurhotiry what could be taken as proof or not then I am baffled without more information to back it up. This is what I mean about replying to long winded statments with virtually no sources. It's a series of snide comments and one liners.

No. The report didn't say that it would. It said that it might.

Lets give it a chance to see if it will worked. That's right you don't care if it did or not. You know what. I know that. You will use anything to try to prove its not effecive even if it was by you're entire attitude and responses. Your a rapid defender of it even if information tipped out of you're way. I have serious concerns you would actually be the first to turn in you're weapon.

A rise in the use of high capacity magazines... during a ban on high capacity magazines would seem to indicate the lack of effectiveness of said ban, would it not?

A ton of weapons were not included in the original assault weapons ban. That should have been. If the 223 bushmaster was included in the ban and Gun Makers did not try to get around that loophole for profit then 26 school children would be still alive. The problem was it was banning a handful of weapons instead targeting the actual problem.

Fewer assault weapon shooting deaths doesn't mean fewer shooting deaths. If a guy grabs a different semi-automatic rifle or even a handgun instead of an assault weapon, and ends up killing the same amount of people, then the ban didn't have an effect on the homicide rate.

Yes it does. A person goes in to kill people. He starts blowing people away with a shotgun. Another person does it with a hand gun. Another does it with assault weapons. You're seriously going to say that the handgun wouldn't run out of bullets faster. Or the Shotgun wouldn't take longer to reload after every few shots. That's WHY people go to crowded weapons with this weapon. It's EXACTLY kind of weapon best to for spraying a large crowd. aka the most bullets in the shortest amount of time aka the entire objective of the killer. Are you so blind to why this weapon is favored in most of recent strings of mass killings.

And yet you ignore the findings of the research report made after the last ban. And the sheer stupidity of the "we need to pass the ban to see if it's effective" argument is staggering.

That emotion you call right there is anger. Further proof you don't care if it had a major impact or not. You don't really pass off as moral justice of Guns that would easily hand over you're weapons. Gun Owners get easily upset, irated frustrated. Isn't that emotion..all you people claim appeals to emotion. Look at this poster isn't he overcome with emotion. How can you say a rational logical debate when you get knee jerk reaction from Gun Owners resorting to insulting.

Again in you're point of view.

That's not what ineffective means. Ineffective doesn't mean no effect at all, it means no meaningful effect; not having the intended effect.

I think quite clear as the meaning ineffective. Meaning just that. When an effect does happen the laws of physics tell us that it had to had SOME effect. Again if you're going be honest at least you can admit you don't care what the report says. I very seriously doubt the sincerity that you'd hand over you're weapon if the data suggests fewer lives can be lost. Your entire attitude is hostile, condensing and a few of snide insults. It just doesn't seem that way.

This is so utterly ridiculous. You claim that assault weapons are "awkward and clumsy" and yet still try to argue that they're more dangerous than any other firearms and should therefore be banned. So which is it? If they're awkward and clumsy, then there's no reason to ban them. If they're more efficient and easier to use, then they're good for home defense.

Both. It IS awkward and clumsy. It can be both that and dangerous. Their design what makes them so dangerous. The ability to shoot a massive amount of bullets in a short amount of time. Let's not forget they can be modified to an assault weapon making them even more dangerous and unusual. That kinda thing is banned under the right to bear arms therefore not protected. However we will not know this till supreme court takes up the case.

You're just changing your tune to fit the argument, which just shows that you don't have an effective defense to your position.

Clearly when I asked Lazie. GreatOaks and that other poster if supreme court would even HEAR the case. You along with others follow in line to deny reality. You forget they already hear the case once. You just don't like something out of you're control.

Ignoring the even better reasons why the ban was allowed to expire in 2004 is even more dishonest.



From that article:

So if 1.5 million assault weapons was enough to stymie a 10-year ban, and considering that there are an estimated 5-30 million firearms that would be classified as assault weapons under the proposed ban, how long do you think the new ban would be stymied before it became "effective"?

And considering the substitution effect and the ready availability of handguns and other non-"assault weapon" semi-automatic rifles, what makes you think that there'd be an effect at all, even after 30+ years?

I'd say at least twenty years. It takes time for old weapons to become more and more rare because they stopped making it. You cannot ban it then next day expect crime to go down. Like with most things it takes time. However that entire post is moot. Because you.don.t.care. It could have a massive effect. You'd still refuse it. You're hiding behind one data that suggests it didn't have an effect. While I found an article saying it did you're attitude still wouldn't change. You are refusing to accept even most basic reality that supreme court will hear the case. I don't expect you to be logical that a decrease in access to weapons would decrease number of bad guys using that and that weapon.

Is it just me, or is this a grotesque appeal to emotion? Did he just "think of the children" us?

You mean like NRA does ALL THE TIME. Again. You can appeal to both emotion and logic at the same time. I'm sure you think Gov is out to take you're weapons. Guess what that's motivated by fear which is an EMOTION should we dismiss everything you say because it appeals to you're personal fear of you're weapons being taken away.

You've proven nothing of the kind. I mean, he did get his hands on a weapon... multiple weapons... capable of just the same rate of fire. Or are you forgetting that he had two handguns with him? Handguns that fire just as fast, and would still be legal under a "strengthened" AWB.

Actually in the NewTown school massacre he only used ONE weapon to murder 26 kids. He used a handgun if that qualities on himself at the end. No that part wasn't added later. It's what took place.

Short period of time, you say. Hah. You're forgetting again that he had twenty fracking minutes to shoot up classrooms to his heart's content.

26 victims. 20 minutes. He killed an average of one person every 46 seconds. Well. I guess it's sure an unlucky thing that he had a firearm capable of such a high rate of fire, huh? Too bad he wasn't limited to those handguns. I hear that it takes an average of 2 minutes per victim with a handgun. /sarcasm [/quote]

Again in the movies he had about five minutes. In that time he killed half the number of people that newtown shooter did. Less break this down the guy who shot up the crowded movies had about five minutes at best. He managed to kill 10 people roughly half of the children killed in that massacre wondering several others. Again you're point. is moot.

Le sigh. "A hundred bullets at once"? You mean a hundred rounds in a minute, of course. It'd be easier to take you seriously if you weren't screwing up your statements left and right.

This is another reason I don't normally reply to long winded statements. Instead of a single quote like normal. You have to respond to each and every single condensing remark. Snide insult. Frankly I don't have to.

But to iterate for what seems like the thousandth time: All semi-automatics are capable of the same rate of fire. The vast majority of handguns, which you agree can't be banned, do the same thing.

Again you can modify an AW to change fully Automatic thus changing the rate of bullets that is fired. Yes it's possible I'd even dare to say it's...dangerous and Usual..

No. Those kids are dead because one crazy man made the decision to end their lives. Not because of the tool used. If the tool were the more important factor, then you wouldn't have 99.99% of them not being used to kill someone.

Unless he blew them up with his mind. The weapon he used is not a tool. It's a weapon. Like a knife it has other uses like cutting meat spreading jelly on bread and cutting people up. My point is other weapons of murder normally have other uses they are used as objects to carry out their plans. A gun only has a single use. That's to kill. The fewer of them attached with 100 round drum I don't know might actually decrease number of people shot.

Seriously? I know you're not an idiot, so you have to see the ridiculousness of your statement. Cosmetic features make a difference in far more ways to the consumer than sheer effectiveness.

What if there was a law that mandated that all cars had to be painted a split pea diarrhea color? I mean, it's just cosmetic, so it doesn't change the function of the car. So that law shouldn't be objectionable, right?

There's a huge divide between saying that pistol grips are a desirable feature and saying that they increase the lethality of the firearm. You don't invalidate the first by invalidating the second. It's not an either/or thing.

You must been replying to someone else. I never argued cosmetic features of the weapon.

What the hell are you talking about? I, for one, get my information directly from the text of Feinsten's bill, from her own website. And it says exactly that. What "rest of the bill" are you referring to? I mean, 96 of the 122 pages are the monstrosity of an appendix listing all the "exemptions" that aren't even exemptions because they don't meet the characteristics of the ban in the first place. So 3/4 of the content of the bill is simply a "hey, look, I'm specifically giving you permission to buy these 2200 firearms even though they have nothing to do with assault weapons!"

It's simple the supreme court has NEVER..and I do mean that word to hear the case on assault weapons. I'd say both sides deserve to have this laid to rest and it either put to a vote in congress and/or taking it to the supreme court. It's quite obvious that we do not agree with each other. Conflicting reports and data and different points of view. I'd say the people victims of ones who actually lost lives deserves to be heard by the court if this AW is both dangerous and unusual. It's only way it's going to be put to rest for good. They cannot legally ban weapons they classify to be both dangerous and unusual therefore falling outside scope of bear arms..therefore not infringing on rights..


[QUOTE=PhaelixWW;20303331]
Hrm. Maybe if we just repeated every word of the bill twice it would be more effective? I guess it's worth a shot!



Your position is that we should allow the ban just so that we can let the SCOTUS determine its Constitutionality? That we can't debate the issue until we allow that to happen? What a bass-ackwards way of doing things. Thankfully, the world doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.[quote]

The thing is. That's EXACTLY what took place when ObamaCare went into effect. They took their case to supreme court because Republicans screamed it was unconstitutional. That took place just last year. After nearly a year they decided if it was or was. They decided it was. We all know certain Tea Party Republicans would protest the ban if Obama passed a bill in congress. The second action is executive action. I think and this is my humble point of view.

He's waiting to see what congress will pass then will sign his own executive orders. Everything about the situation from the time that shooting took place has largely focused around weapons. It's not going away next week. This is not another faded news article. This is actually a game changer for first time since 1994 we're taking serious step for protection for the public. That I think makes you most mad that it can. Not that it will but possibility of it happening makes you foam at the mouth you cannot even admit it could happen. Where I can.

The purpose of the SCOTUS isn't to determine what laws should be made. On the contrary, their mandate is to evaluate the laws and decide which ones shouldn't have been made and thus correct the errors of the Legislative Branch of government. You might as well be advocating someone to stop arguing their criminal defense at trial and instead wait until after the conviction to argue their case during appeal.

Their job is to interpret the laws. That's what they did with ObamaCare. They decided solely if it was constitutional or not. They decided that it was.

Your ability to evaluate the danger of a classification of firearms that you've repeatedly been unable to consistently get correct is extremely suspect.



Case in point.

What you've just described isn't an assault weapon. Selective-fire firearms are subject to the NFA, a fact that people have been pointing out to you for literally hundreds of pages. Anything capable of a fully automatic fire mode is, by every single iteration of legal definition, not an assault weapon.



I'll point out for the... whatever time, for those readers who haven't read it yet, that Congress failed to pass proposed AWB legislation in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008. That's a lot of "only" reasons.



Not that your posts have any real validity per a reasonable discussion, as you've stated your out-and-out desire to wage war on all firearm ownership, but I'll repost something from earlier:




Pardon me while I choke on my own laughter. You've steadfastly refused to acknowledge many truths, despite data proving the inaccuracy of your statements, on numerous occasions. I couldn't think of a more appropriate question to ask you if I tried.



More incorrect statements. First, you should get your timeline straight. DC v. Heller was in 2008 and had nothing to do with the already-expired Federal AWB. Second, the case had to do with a handgun ban, not an assault weapons ban, so there's no real legally distinct overlap between the two.



You like to repeat yourself about this a lot, but I don't really see anyone saying that the SCOTUS doesn't have the power to rule on this, only that they're personally confident of what the result would be. There's a big difference between someone saying "That'll never happen" and "Legally, that cannot happen". One is an implied opinion and the other is a statement of fact.

But understanding that would rid you of your current favorite whipping post, so I don't expect you'll get it.


I'll repeat something I posted earlier:

Lemme just make something a bit more clear. If you want to respond to me that's fine I enjoy a discussion. However when you quote about ten separate quotes from me taken over a period of a week. You cannot seriously expect me to use my time and energy to quote every single one of those condensing remarks. Most of it isn't even backed by a source. It's just snide comments with word play like .."this statement is ridiculous etc" would it be too much to ask when responding to do so..reasonable so I don't have to time half the day quoting reply's directly. Perhaps quoting a single statement then responding..instead of a wall of text.

Let is the last time. I'll be replying to person by a quote by quote. I just find it a tad annoying when no one shows up for a week. Then quotes me. Then foams at the mouth with insults when I don't reply in a timely manner because they're feelings are bruised I didn't respond directly to them. If you're going reply would it be so much to ask to do so in a single statement.

Again. I decided just not to respond to last four comments. Because seriously you should be reasonable and logical not quote everything I said from a WEEK ago then respond to it. Or if you do respond. Do not expect me to sit here take thirty minutes to respond to snide long winded information with only one link in that entire ramble to even back anything you said.

To Poster above me..Obama could sign an executive order banning them quite easily. He is the President. Would it be constitutional or not. I do not know least that's a case for SUPREME COURT to hear not me. I really dislike repeating myself. It ALL goes back to the supreme court. They will decide in the end even if laws are passed no doubt people like you will protest it.

Thanks now I wasted a majority of my early day just so certain posters wouldn't accuse me ignoring them.

[Sicarus]

FusedMass's recent post in a nutshell:

AWB Ban of 1994 worked great! (lie)

We're not trying to take away your guns! (pft)

Assault Weapons are capable of spraying 100 bullets per minute. (lie)

The rest is just probably uninformed opinions or emotional arguments intended to use pity.

Infracted: Please post constructively and refrain from personal attacks

[Rocko9]

I was comparing to a hand gun. The biggest advantages a hand gun has is storage, its easier to hide a hand gun from the kids, and ease of wielding. I'm simply calling into question the importance of many of the advantages that a rifle supposedly has.

Don't hide guns from kids, teach kids about them. When they learn to respect them, it eliminates bad "curiosities". Carbines aren't unwieldy. Anything you don't practice or train with is unwieldy. I pick a handgun, because I can handle them easily and the caliber I use is .44 magnum. The stopping power is way higher than a .223. The reason the army requested the M1911, was because .38 revolvers weren't stopping the native in the Philippines who were using plants with a pain killer effect.

On a side note, children usually learn safety (in my experience) alot sooner than adults. If I had to guess, it's because adults tend to assume that they can do it.