Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Cthulhu 2020]

What does this even mean?
What about the other guns that also have this feature.
It's more than just one gun.

How does banning certain features infringe your ability to buy guns? It infringes your ability to buy guns with those features permanently attached. It does not hinder you from buying all guns.

[Elegiac]

I'm fairly sure the mockery is intended to point out that the people doing the regulation don't know what they're regulating, which is a sub optimal situation. I don't know much of anything about these specific features, but I'd say the general idea that Congress is extremely ill informed about weapons is correct.

Exactly. All they are doing is banning guns based on their 'scare value' - the fact of the matter is that this proposed ban is a token gesture designed to mollify the crowd of anti-gun people.

And if this goes through, and another massacre happens, they still won't see how silly the ban was.

[Deadvolcanoes]

It's also ergonomic. And I fail to see how a pistol grip makes a gun particularly more dangerous.

It doesn't make a gun more dangerous, it makes the operation of a rifle more effective, particularly in combat situations.

[Spectral]

And if this goes through, and another massacre happens, they still won't see how silly the ban was.

Indeed, the response surely wouldn't be, "well, shit, I guess banning certain weapons wasn't the solution", it'll be, "see, we need to ban more weapons!".

[Deadvolcanoes]

What about guns made with a pistol grip that is not detachable? Now you cant buy that gun.

Which rifles have pistol grips that are not detachable? I guess I have to claim ignorance here.

[Elegiac]

How does banning certain features infringe your ability to buy guns? It infringes your ability to buy guns with those features permanently attached. It does not hinder you from buying all guns.

It is in infringement because there has not been sufficient justification for the restriction of a liberty that is inherent.

[lockedout]

How does banning certain features infringe your ability to buy guns? It infringes your ability to buy guns with those features permanently attached. It does not hinder you from buying all guns.

It restricts my ability to buy those guns. What if I am more comfortable using a pistol grip? Because some woman who never shot a gun before doesnt like that way it looks I can't have it?

[Grizzly Willy]

Indeed, the response surely wouldn't be, "well, shit, I guess banning certain weapons wasn't the solution", it'll be, "see, we need to ban more weapons!".

Need to ban them harder.

[Kujako]

I don't really see how that takes away your ability to buy guns. Just that gun.

To be honest, considering how much right wing pandering media makes fun of the bill for banning pistol grips and folding stocks and how those things are "purely cosmetic" I really don't see why it's such an issue that they would be banned. If such things are purely cosmetic, and that is the only thing the bill is banning, why would anyone oppose it? Doesn't really make sense to me...

Think of it this way, would you be opposed to a federal ban on computer cases with LED lit cooling fans in order to fight digital piracy? It's purely cosmetic, but it would be silly to spend time and money trying to ban it since it would have no effect on what they are claiming to be trying to curtail.

To me, there is some non-cosmetic elements to the proposed ban. But I feel it is still a waste of energy that could far better be spent elsewhere on things that have a better chance of actually having a noticeable effect (such as background checkes and registration).

[Deadvolcanoes]

It is in infringement because there has not been sufficient justification for the restriction of a liberty that is inherent.

Assault weapon bans have been ruled constitutional by federal courts. So no, its not an infringement.

[lockedout]

a federal ban on computer cases with LED lit cooling fans in order to fight digital piracy.

Seems like a great idea. Why hasn't this been mentioned before?

---------- Post added 2013-02-22 at 05:19 AM ----------

Assault weapon bans have been ruled constitutional by federal courts. So no, its not an infringement.

Hi, whats an assault weapon?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Hi, whats an assault weapon?

You didn't answer my previous question.

And you know what an assault weapon is, so why are you asking?

[lockedout]

You didn't answer my previous question.

And you know what an assault weapon is, so why are you asking?

I really don't. Could you explain?

[Deadvolcanoes]

I really don't. Could you explain?

Can we give each other a little more credit please. We both know its a vague definition, but it refers to combat style weapons that include certain modifications like a folding stock, pistol grip, high capacity magazines, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, etc...

And anyway, previous bans have been ruled constitutional.

[Elegiac]

Assault weapon bans have been ruled constitutional by federal courts. So no, its not an infringement.

Show me the Supreme Court case, please.

[lockedout]

Can we give each other a little more credit please. We both know its a vague definition, but it refers to combat style weapons that include certain modifications like a folding stock, pistol grip, high capacity magazines, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, etc...

And anyway, previous bans have been ruled constitutional.

So you mean hunting rifles with cosmetic accessories?
Or are you talking about fully automatic machine guns?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Show me the Supreme Court case, please.

D.C. v Heller. The most recent and up to date case we have on the second amendment and guns. They affirmed a lower courts ruling that:

The District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi- automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime: Judge Douglas Ginsburg

[Cthulhu 2020]

DC vs Heller, the supreme court case that overturned the firearms control act of 1974, overturned the bill that, among other things banned assault weapons and required all legal guns to be either trigger locked or disassembled in the home.

The bill was overturned not because of the assault weapon part. The majority in the 5-4 decision stated that the bill was unconstitutional because of the trigger lock or disassembled part as it rendered guns inoperable, and went on to say that a similar bill (not containing the trigger lock/disassembled part) would be deemed constitutional because assault weapons and the sort had no business being in the hands of civilians.

When such a bill makes it through and becomes law, assuming the supreme court holds to its previously stated stance, it will be upheld.

The SC has already deemed that the unrestricted ownership of any firearm whatsoever by civilians is not constitutional as it does not consider them militia, but extends the right to own certain firearms to the people for the purpose of home and self defense.

[Deadvolcanoes]

So you mean hunting rifles with cosmetic accessories?
Or are you talking about fully automatic machine guns?

This is seriously annoying. Fully automatic machine guns are assault rifles. I already described an assault weapon. Do you have anything else to say?

[lockedout]

D.C. v Heller. The most recent and up to date case we have on the second amendment and guns. They affirmed a lower courts ruling that:

What assault weapons were banned?

---------- Post added 2013-02-22 at 05:30 AM ----------

This is seriously annoying. Fully automatic machine guns are assault rifles. I already described an assault weapon. Do you have anything else to say?

I thought so. Fully automatic machine guns are NOT assault rifles.