Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Mar 2018, 4:17 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Apparently, not enough Americans agree with you, or it wouldn't have expired.


You actually believe that US politicians make laws that most of Americans want?

A new poll shows that 70% of Americans — and more than half of Republicans — support stricter laws on assault weapons in the wake of a deadly shooting in Florida.
According to the poll from Business Insider's partner MSN, 87% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans support stricter laws on assault weapons.


If your government was responsive to the wishes of their voters they would have a ban on "assault weapons".
Trump isn't right about much, but he's right when he says republicans are afraid of the NRA.


No, Republicans don’t believe in mass punishment. On the other hand, it’s what Democrats do best. Ban this. Tax that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 Mar 2018, 7:03 pm

Doctor Fate wrote: Apparently, not enough Americans agree with you, or it wouldn't have expired.
That was down to a few hundred Americans in DC.

"Assault weapons" is an ill-defined, well-abused term. What many Democrats want is to do away with semi-autos. Good luck with that. We will have a police state before that happens.
As I understand it, the 1994 Act was defined clearly enough, despite the naming of it.

As for "police state", how many people are killed by cops in the US each year?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Mar 2018, 8:02 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote: Apparently, not enough Americans agree with you, or it wouldn't have expired.
That was down to a few hundred Americans in DC.

"Assault weapons" is an ill-defined, well-abused term. What many Democrats want is to do away with semi-autos. Good luck with that. We will have a police state before that happens.
As I understand it, the 1994 Act was defined clearly enough, despite the naming of it.

As for "police state", how many people are killed by cops in the US each year?


1. Those “few hundred” are elected by millions.
2. It was ill-defined. Some of the features banned were for appearances only.
3. Irrelevant. To take away guns will take door-to-door searches, nation-wide. That’s a “police state.”

I understand you don’t like weapons. Okay.

The US isn’t going to ban everything except slingshots and muskets.

There is a problem. The problem is two-fold: 1) people; 2) government failure.

Banning weapons is not the answer to either.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 05 Mar 2018, 2:36 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
1. Those “few hundred” are elected by millions.
And? Do you think your representatives reflect your views on every issue? Or even the representatives from the party you vote for?

2. It was ill-defined. Some of the features banned were for appearances only.
And others, such as high capacity magazines, were pretty clear. Perhaps improving the definitions would have been a better idea than giving up.
3. Irrelevant. To take away guns will take door-to-door searches, nation-wide. That’s a “police state.”
The 1994 law included grandfathering. Would that be acceptable to you, as it would not mean trying to "grab" guns already held? And hey, you already do have searches for other contraband, that is law enforcement. Should you legalise drugs to avoid searches for drugs? Of course not.

I understand you don’t like weapons. Okay.

The US isn’t going to ban everything except slingshots and muskets.
STRAW MAN ALERT!

I don't really like weapons, that is true. But I do not think banning all guns (or all bar muskets) is the right thing to do. We don't do that here. As I have said before, my uncle was a gunsmith until a retired a few years ago. A mile from my house is a gun shop. A few miles further, a small gun maker. We ban quite a lot of types of gun (more than I think is acceptable in the US), and we regulate the rest.

There is a problem. The problem is two-fold: 1) people; 2) government failure.

Banning weapons is not the answer to either.
I disagree. You can assert hypothesis and principles all you like. I would prefer to go on data. Whether you like it or not, increasing regulations on guns tends to reduce the harm (1) people can do, and (2) the need for government perfection on monitoring people who are a risk.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Mar 2018, 6:24 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
1. Those “few hundred” are elected by millions.
And? Do you think your representatives reflect your views on every issue? Or even the representatives from the party you vote for?


No, but if they fail across the board on something the electorate cares deeply about, they get turned out of office.

2. It was ill-defined. Some of the features banned were for appearances only.
And others, such as high capacity magazines, were pretty clear. Perhaps improving the definitions would have been a better idea than giving up.


High-capacity magazines are in the eye of the beholder. What is "high?" To some, it's any magazine at all.

3. Irrelevant. To take away guns will take door-to-door searches, nation-wide. That’s a “police state.”
The 1994 law included grandfathering. Would that be acceptable to you, as it would not mean trying to "grab" guns already held? And hey, you already do have searches for other contraband, that is law enforcement. Should you legalise drugs to avoid searches for drugs? Of course not.


Making drugs illegal stopped their sale. /snark

I'm not in favor of the 1994 law.

I understand you don’t like weapons. Okay.

The US isn’t going to ban everything except slingshots and muskets.
STRAW MAN ALERT!


No, it's not a straw man. There are Democrats and liberals proposing getting rid of all semi-automatic weapons, every single one.

There is a problem. The problem is two-fold: 1) people; 2) government failure.

Banning weapons is not the answer to either.
I disagree. You can assert hypothesis and principles all you like. I would prefer to go on data. Whether you like it or not, increasing regulations on guns tends to reduce the harm (1) people can do, and (2) the need for government perfection on monitoring people who are a risk.


Fine, let's talk data. Out of the legal gun-owners in the US, what percentage commit mass shootings?

We don't live in a bubble. People get harmed. They are harmed by drunk drivers. They are harmed by insane people driving trucks. They are harmed by insane people planting explosives. They are harmed by many things.

We have a Second Amendment so we can protect ourselves from, among other things, the government.

When government fails to protect us, the answer is not "Take away their guns!"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Mar 2018, 6:35 am

Here's a lovely example of government violating the Constitution because it can:

A Washington Post investigation in 2014 found that state and local police had seized almost $2.5 billion from motorists and others without search warrants or indictments since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The Post series revealed that police routinely stopped drivers for minor traffic infractions, pressed them to agree to searches without warrants and seized large amounts of cash when there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

Police then spent the proceeds from the seizure with little oversight, according to the Post investigation. In some cases, the police bought luxury cars, high-powered weapons and armored cars.

“You’re never going to eliminate allegations of abuses,” Rosenstein said, “never going to eliminate mistakes 100 percent. But I think this new policy is going to position us very well to make sure there are very few credible allegations of abuse, and where there are we’re going to make it a priority to follow up.”

The new policy from Attorney General Jeff Sessions authorizes federal “adoption” of assets seized by state and local police when the conduct that led to the seizures violates federal law. Rosenstein said that the department is adding safeguards to ensure that police have sufficient evidence of criminal activity when property is seized. Property owners will receive notice of their rights within 45 days, which is twice as quickly as required by current law. Law enforcement agencies will be required to provide officers with more training on asset forfeiture laws, he said.

State and local law enforcement officials supported the change, but Democratic and Republican lawmakers were skeptical.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) called Sessions’s policy “troubling” and said it would “expand a loophole that’s become a central point of contention nationwide.”
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4823
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 05 Mar 2018, 7:36 am

Fate:
We have a Second Amendment so we can protect ourselves from, among other things, the government.


Why do you need semi-automatics to protect yourself against the government? Should everyone be able to protect themselves in that way?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Mar 2018, 7:51 am

Ray Jay wrote:Fate:
We have a Second Amendment so we can protect ourselves from, among other things, the government.


Why do you need semi-automatics to protect yourself against the government? Should everyone be able to protect themselves in that way?


What’s wrong with semi-autos? Are revolvers sufficient?

As you know, restrictions on law-abiding citizens do not help.

Let’s ban cars because of drunk drivers.

Let’s ban trucks because of terrorists.

Let’s ban chainsaws because of bad movies.

Banning machine guns and bumpstocks is quite sufficient.

The answer to your question is “Yes. Every law-abiding, sane, citizen of the US should be able to purchase and carry a semi-automatic.”
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4823
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 05 Mar 2018, 7:55 am

But I don't think you are answering my question. What is the scenario when you need a semi-automatic to protect yourself against the government. Are they raiding your house? Are you being surrounded by the FBI or some other government organization?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Mar 2018, 8:16 am

Ray Jay wrote:But I don't think you are answering my question. What is the scenario when you need a semi-automatic to protect yourself against the government. Are they raiding your house? Are you being surrounded by the FBI or some other government organization?


I'm sorry. Is the Second Amendment conditioned upon me being able to devise said scenario?

What is the level of defense one should be afforded?

Finally, should Americans be legally-required to depend on the government for defense in all situations?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4823
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 05 Mar 2018, 8:26 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:But I don't think you are answering my question. What is the scenario when you need a semi-automatic to protect yourself against the government. Are they raiding your house? Are you being surrounded by the FBI or some other government organization?


I'm sorry. Is the Second Amendment conditioned upon me being able to devise said scenario?



I think the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional question and I have no issue with how it has been interpreted to date. I'm comfortable with our courts figuring out its boundaries and applications going forward. But I'm referring to this statement that you made:

We have a Second Amendment so we can protect ourselves from ... the government.


And I'm trying to understand how this applies in the existing world to the case of semi-automatics.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 05 Mar 2018, 9:51 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
1. Those “few hundred” are elected by millions.
And? Do you think your representatives reflect your views on every issue? Or even the representatives from the party you vote for?


No, but if they fail across the board on something the electorate cares deeply about, they get turned out of office.
Perhaps. Of course in the election later that year the Republican vote share went down, but they gained seats in the House and the Senate.

2. It was ill-defined. Some of the features banned were for appearances only.
And others, such as high capacity magazines, were pretty clear. Perhaps improving the definitions would have been a better idea than giving up.


High-capacity magazines are in the eye of the beholder. What is "high?" To some, it's any magazine at all.
We are talking about the 1994-2004 AWB, and in there was a clear definition of the number of rounds that constituted "high capacity". To save you doing any research or checking, it was more than 10. You may not agree with that definition, but it was clearly defined

3. Irrelevant. To take away guns will take door-to-door searches, nation-wide. That’s a “police state.”
The 1994 law included grandfathering. Would that be acceptable to you, as it would not mean trying to "grab" guns already held? And hey, you already do have searches for other contraband, that is law enforcement. Should you legalise drugs to avoid searches for drugs? Of course not.


Making drugs illegal stopped their sale. /snark
So you favour legalisation of drugs now?

I'm not in favor of the 1994 law.
that is obvious. But your low opinion of it is not evidence that it didn't work.

No, it's not a straw man. There are Democrats and liberals proposing getting rid of all semi-automatic weapons, every single one.
MOVING GOALPOSTS!

You originally suggested it was about banning every gun apart from muskets, not banning semi-automatics.

There is a problem. The problem is two-fold: 1) people; 2) government failure.

Banning weapons is not the answer to either.
I disagree. You can assert hypothesis and principles all you like. I would prefer to go on data. Whether you like it or not, increasing regulations on guns tends to reduce the harm (1) people can do, and (2) the need for government perfection on monitoring people who are a risk.


Fine, let's talk data.
At this point, I was hoping you might present some. I have presented data. You appear to have ignored it.

Instead, just blather. If you want to talk data, using cliché and slogans isn't how you do it.
Last edited by danivon on 05 Mar 2018, 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 05 Mar 2018, 9:53 am

Ray Jay wrote:
We have a Second Amendment so we can protect ourselves from ... the government.


And I'm trying to understand how this applies in the existing world to the case of semi-automatics.

As am I. Ruby Ridge and Waco suggest that even semi-automatics are useless against a determined government. The government has weaponry that renders personal firearms utterly redundant.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3108
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Mar 2018, 10:01 am

When the Second Amendment was passed a soldier could fire a musket maybe 2-3 rounds a minute. And if someone tried to shoot a crowd of people with it he would have been able to get his first shot off and be overrun before he would get off the second shot. On the other hand, at Concord and Lexington militias armed with muskets got the British Army to running....

Obviously nowadays semi-automatic weapons can be turned on fellow citizens with devastating effect. And no way could some civilians with semi-automatic weapons could do anything against the US army. Our protection against governmental tyranny is mostly in our minds, in our commitment to democratic values. In soldiers refusing to follow any such orders. If we have ever have to resist government tyranny...we will need a lot better weapons than a semi-automatic assault weapon...

For instance the wrongful seizure of assets by police agencies (as DF referenced) is being resisted. Lawfully. The idea (I think) was to allow police agencies a tool to be used against drug dealers. But it got abused. And basically it infringes on due process rights with regard to property in my opinion. But such governmental excesses can be opposed in the courts.

Otherwise...firearms should be highly regulated and those that can inflict too much harm on fellow citizens...banned.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Mar 2018, 10:04 am

Ray Jay wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:But I don't think you are answering my question. What is the scenario when you need a semi-automatic to protect yourself against the government. Are they raiding your house? Are you being surrounded by the FBI or some other government organization?


I'm sorry. Is the Second Amendment conditioned upon me being able to devise said scenario?



I think the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional question and I have no issue with how it has been interpreted to date. I'm comfortable with our courts figuring out its boundaries and applications going forward. But I'm referring to this statement that you made:

We have a Second Amendment so we can protect ourselves from ... the government.


And I'm trying to understand how this applies in the existing world to the case of semi-automatics.


I'm not sure what you're objecting to. They fire one round at a time.