Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: zinfamous
This issue will be solved through compromise--by both sides making sacrifices--and not by taking one extreme viewpoint over the other. Here, the middle ground fallacy does not apply.
As long as that sacrifice does not involve taking anything from me or permanently eliminate my ability to purchase something I don't already have but may want to in the future, such as the M1 Garand I have my eyes on that is covered under the proposed renewal of the assault weapon ban on the basis that it was used by our military at one time in the past. And as long as they don't violate the constitution.
The only thing I yield on with gun rights is doing everything we can to stop people who clearly shouldn't have access to them from getting them. This includes mentally ill, people who have criminal records (and I don't mean a speeding ticket), etc, i.e.: some clear example that the person is not fit to be trusted with deadly force that doesn't rely on a random individuals arbitrary value judgment.
I have absolutely no problem enforcing stricter penalties on using guns in
clear cut obvious crimes against society, there should be absolutely ZERO tolerance. Guns used in crime should be a one time deal and carry a minimum severe penalty or commitment to a mental health facility.
Implied consent to search mental health records when purchasing a firearm is also something I would support.
Minor inconveniences such as having to wait 5 minutes for a NICS check I support.
I support strict punishment on gun distributors who knowingly traffic weapons to people who shouldn't have them.
I will support increasingly severe punishment of people who abuse their freedoms to harm society.
But I will NEVER yield on someone taking anything from me, telling me how many guns I can have, how much ammunition I can buy at a time, what features civilian guns can or can't have, what models I am allowed to own, what capacity my magazines have to be, etc. Attack the real problem of people who shouldn't have guns having them and using them incorrectly. Don't attack guns themselves, that is something the left can't seem to understand.
A gun is a gun, all guns do the same thing, they use a propellant charge to launch a high velocity projectile. It is futile to ban them on the basis of their appearances or similarity to full auto military weapons and grenade launchers. So it's either don't ban any of them or ban them all, and the latter will never happen, so case closed.
Don't we all believe in diversity?
A person who shouldn't have a weapon shouldn't have ANY weapon at ALL. Therefore focusing on the restricting TYPES of weapons available is a dead end and will never be tolerated because it only restricts enthusiasts, little boys, and nerds who just like collecting and playing with all kinds of assorted neat guns safely. As is I'm prepared to blow $10,000+ on two of everything on the newly proposed ban if it looks like it has a chance in hell of passing (seriously doubt it but I'll buy a dozen 30 rd AR15 mags today just to spite it). I'd rather have the luxury of getting them here and there as I can fit them into my budget, but I'm not going to pass up the chance to own some of them, any more than people flock to other 'limited edition' things like the 6800 Ultra Extreme of days past.
That's pretty much how I feel, but I still don't see why civillians should be allowed to purchase assault weapons. More than any other gun, they are designed specifically to kill people. End of story. Any argument that such a gun is necessary for hunting is pure BS, and gun enthusiasts know it. All you need to kill anything is a bow-and-arrow, really. If you wanted to be a "man," I say hunt with a bowie knife (or spear) and loin cloth. Give the animal a fighting chance
Hell...it worked for ~25 million years....
And no, I'm not against hunting. I'm against nuts that either suck so terribly at it, or have been made ignorant by all their mouth breathing to think that an assault rifle is necessary hunting gear.
Ranted a bit off topic there...but what do you expect?
It's NOT for hunting. Neither is the Bill of Rights. Nor are handguns. It never HAS been about hunting. Why hunting is ever even brought up on either side is stupid. You see how big of a gun person I am here... I am not a 'hunter'. I have a wide assortment of guns because I enjoy shooting them, operating them, building them, etc. And yes, if there is a brand new gun out that I see in a video game but haven't heard about it in real life yet I might check out the real thing and maybe get one if it's any good and I can afford to spend the $2000+ those types of guns cost ('assault weapons' are high popularity high margin goods like 24"+ LCD monitors are, which is one reason criminals don't have them despite what the media says. In fact if they got a hold of one they are more likely to keep their handgun for crime and pawn the 'assault weapon' for its high value)
I want to see a politician that says he has a AR-15 in his closet and spends his weekends at the rifle range for fun. I want to see that same politician say he carries a handgun for self defense. I don't want to see some goof ass wannabe dressing up in a neatly pressed duck hunting clothes shooting a polished wooden engraved double barrel shotgun saying he is a hunter and thus supports gun rights. I'm sick of it.
'Assault rifles' are typically not allowed in hunting anyway. Most places are restricted to 5 round magazines, basically to address what you said: to enforce good marksmanship and clean instant kills, and not just spraying and praying and injuring animals due to having high capacity magazines with badly placed shots in non vital areas. Also, 'assault rifles' are too low powered to adequately ensure rapid incapacitation of medium and large size animals. A 5.56x45mm/.223" round from a M16/AR15 is pretty much sufficient for rodents and baby deer, anything bigger is pretty much inhumane with that little bullet at long ranges.
What I have a problem with is why someone says "assault weapons are specifically designed to kill people more than other guns" when all guns are essentially a barrel, a trigger, and a firing pin that strikes the primer of the cartridge. Everything else, plastic, wood, whatever, is just cosmetic, like the difference between a Toyota and a Lexus. A gun is a gun, period, and any justification of one gun being deadlier than another is just total bullshlt.
Not to mention, again, assault rifle style rounds are light and small and are far less lethal than larger rounds used in single shot style bolt action style rifles. The DC shooter used a AR-15 in his murder spree correct? Yet he killed all his victims with a SINGLE shot, despite the fact that the AR-15 is semi automatic and can accommodate 30 rd magazines. Also, had he been using a deer rifle, you can bet there NONE of his victims would have survived, as some did, thanks to the weak killing power of the .223 at long ranges. That is why the non-civilian legal military M16 version has burst and auto fire modes that the civilian legal versions don't in order to make up for the poor stopping power with quantity of bullets over quality. (if I had a say in it, we would be going back to 7.62x51mm / .308 in the military)
You're buying into the media scare fest. If I had to choose between getting hit by a AK-47 or a .30-06 deer hunting rifle, I'd take my chances with the AK-47.
You can spin it all you want, and talk about hunting all you want, but a gun is a gun, period. I wish people would stop talking about hunting and assault weapons, they are both just ridiculous ploys on both sides to try to dress up the issue of gun rights.
To me they are like PC accessories, customizing your car, etc. I like buying, selling, trading, learning, playing, with ALL of them. Not just the plain boring ones made in 1895 that the government says I can because they don't look like the ones police and military use or the ones that are popular in moves and video games.
And by 'playing' with them I mean just that, enjoying them in a recreational setting for entertainment purposes in a safe environment for those around me. To me they are 'toys' though in the sense that I have them for my own admiration and pleasure and benefit, I don't use them to hunt animals or murder people. I don't need them to eat, sleep, find shelter, or reproduce, so in that essence they are extracurricular accessories like every other 'toy' we have that isn't food or water. I don't need them like I don't need a lot of things. But I have them because I want them and I was willing to exchange labor for income so that I might purchase them from someone willing to produce them. But I respect the power of these particular 'toys' to take life if mistreated and disrespected, and I handle them accordingly. Baring the need to exercise deadly force in defense of myself or a third person of course.
Now I am interested, because if you agree with my other post, I'm know I can clear up any confusion there may be over your concern about 'assault weapons'.
What is it exactly that makes them worse other than their popularity? The VT shooter had an ordinary small caliber 9mm handgun and 17 spare magazines, not an 'assault weapon'.
Facebook
Twitter