LogicMan, I give you credit for standing up to your beliefs. Thank you for not further retorting with more rhetoric and obfuscation.(for the most part)
Although I vehemently disagree with you, you have maintained a coolness and directness in responding to my provocative response.
You do however maintain some rather shaky justifications and taxonomies regarding weapon types.
I find your comparison with animals and humans being the same with regards to firearms kind of tacky.
You also didn’t give a good enough rebuttal to my contention that military weapons are not best for hunting. They aren’t! If you don’t know that, you don’t know guns. The counter about what’s ideal for who, being an arbitrary thing is irrelevant and distraction.
How is it tacky? Humans are animals. We’re a very brainy upright walking ape. If a gun can be used to kill a variety of non-human animals, it can most definitely be used to kill a human and vice-versa. Military guns make fine hunting weapons, which is why historically, most purpose-built hunting and sporting rifles have been derived from military designs, and the practice of adopting military guns for civilian purposes such as self-defense and hunting goes back to the days of the Revolution.
There are plenty of hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols which are ideal for hunting and target shooting. They are easily accessible, economic, and made specifically for hunting/target. Don’t bother disputing this with me.
Sure there are. And every one of them could be modified to be more robust to make for a fine military gun too. Also remember that the right to keep arms isn’t about those things though.
Obviously I don’t subscribe to the beleaguered citizen in distress scenario where thousands of good gun owners will defend themselves against a tyrannical govt.
In fact, that crap is real shallow and Hollywood. Years of Hollywood conditioning.
As said, no one can predict the future. Peaceful civil resistance would always be the first thing to do. Violent resistance is only a last-ditch option. The people having arms serves as the ultimate deterrent to such a government. It’s kind of like nations having nuclear bombs, it serves as an ultimate deterrent.
I’m not making definitions. You are. It doesn’t matter what you call them. Just as long as magazines with capacities over 10 rounds are banned. That means no importation of magazines with capacities over 10 rounds, no domestic sales of said magazines(except for law enforcement or military), no trading, no Grandfather Clause, no exhibition of said magazines, no use of said magazines, no parts sales for said magazines, no modification kits for magazines to increase capacity.
Nope, calling anything over ten rounds “high-capacity” is something made-up. However, if you want to argue the number of rounds itself, fine, but I argue against it, for the reasons I have stated above.
The law should confiscate all magazines on site and impose a fine for usage. An amnesty program should be set-up and said magazines should be turned in for monetary compensation. The remainder of said magazines can be quietly hoarded by wing-nuts while they await the Second Coming. After 100 or so years, these magazines will have vanished. The remainder will be mostly obsolete or worn out. Problem solved!
And also people’s rights infringed upon. People like magazines of over ten rounds for the same reasons police and military do, as they face the criminals police do.
I did say that from the get-go. You’re trying to confuse people with comparisons of assault rifles and weapons and full-automatic fire etc.
I’m trying to clarify to my fellow gun control advocates that it is simple: Outlaw all guns that are semi-automatic and have a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. It’s that simple
Okay fine, if that is your argument, then I disagree with it via my arguments made in prior posts. However I am not trying to confuse people at all. It is important people know what the terminology means on this issue.
My fellow Gun control advocates don’t need to be confused with all these tongue in cheek rednecks and gun-nut whackjobs and NRA sycophants confusing them with meandering discussions about pistol grip fore-ends, or flash hiders, or collapsible stocks etc. That’s all tertiary at best! The NRA sycophants know it too.
It isn’t rednecks or gun nuts (BTW, why are people who defend one part of the Constitution considered nuts but people who uncompromisingly defend other parts of the Constitution, for example the ACLU, respected?) who seek to confuse with this issue, it is gun control who often mislead otherwise well-meaning people with such terminology. You are right, pistol grips, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc…are tertiary, so why make laws labeling guns with such features as “assault weapons” and then demonize those who are against such laws?
You would love nothing more than to go round and round explaining to all of these good people on here what the definition of an assault rifle is. Because for alot of them it is out of their knowledge scope. So you can confuse them and turn the tables on focal points! No No No….just ban all guns that are semi-automatic and have magazine capacities of over 10 rounds. That covers everything! Pistols, shotguns and rifles all in one swoop. And it leaves untouched every conceivable gun one might need to hunt, target shoot or even defend their home with.
Explaining things to people is about clearing up misconceptions, not confusing people. And you ban semiautomatics and limit it to ten round magazines, then you end up with lever-actions and pump-actions getting banned as well at some point. Gun control proponents will always find ways to build on prior gun control legislation.
(I hate to quibble about this here, I should have mentioned this aways back, shotgun magazines should be limited to 5 rounds. You know, like a regular Model 37 or an 1100…nobody needs more capacity than that to hunt with.)
Textbook example here! You say limit guns to ten round fixed magazines and then say shotguns should be limited to five rounds, because that’s all one “needs” for “hunting” (which again is not what the right to keep and bear arms is about).
This is rich. Too much Hollywood again!
Really? so why do police officers carry guns? What about all of the incidences each year involving home break-ins and crimes. There is nothing “Hollywood” about it.
I would hope not. I wouldn’t go for pumps or levers being banned. Or 5 round semi-automatic shotguns or revolvers or semi-automatic pistols with magazines that hold 10 rounds or less. In fact, the 10 round rotary mag in a Ruger 10/22 .22 LR or even the 15 or 18 round tube magazine Marlin .22 LRs could be allowed to stay. But no 50 round drums or extensions or any of that other happy horse crap….even for .22LR!
.22s are more plinking guns, good for target practice, not hunting or self-defense. Also, you need to be more clear, as you’ve said you want all semiautomatics banned, now you say you are okay with some semiautomatics. But there are plenty of people who would say the pump and lever actions should be banned also. And then that the bolt-actions should be strictly regulated as they also serve as sniper rifles.
You just said the reason alot of people own guns is because they may NEED to kill someone. Sounds like a need to me.
If the right to bear arms isn’t predicated on a need, then what is it predicated on?
What is meant is that one doesn’t have to demonstrate a specific need to own a gun, no more than one needs to demonstrate a need to own a textbook on say chemistry. However, one of the reasons people will own guns is for self-defense.
Do you mean: “why do I think the police use magazines with capacities over 10 rounds?” Those magazines may be standard for police, but they should not be standard for civilians. I already said civilians don’t need magazines that hold over 10 rounds. None of those magazines will be standard for civilians or civilian purchased guns when they are outlawed.
In addition to the right not predicated on need, but why wouldn’t civilians need such magazines? Police need them, so why wouldn’t civilians? Who are you to decide this?
Don’t need a Constitutional convention. New York didn’t need one. Just have to place limits and more restrictions on existing rights and privileges.
Make Semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds accessible only to De-Luxe Permit holders. Yessir!
1 year waiting period per gun. Extensive background checks, huge permit fees..2 to 3 thousand dollars per gun say…oh yeah. That will reduce the amount of slack-jawed gun-toting morons out there.
Thus far, none of those “slack-jawed gun-toting morons” (BTW you may not realize it, but there is an element of bigotry in your views on gun owners it seems—-you should stop being so judgemental) have been involved in mass shootings. All of the mass shootings have involved people who were clearly mentally ill, with the exception for Nidal Hasan, for whom it was religious, and then that cop in California who was full of praise for President Obama.