Question For Anti-Gun Dems

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-21-2021, 12:03 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you're exaggerating, completely undercutting your argument. 

Not at all.  Since you want to go this route, let's.

I own "assault weapon".  I die.  The "assault weapon" still belongs to me, like any other piece of property I own, until my bequests are made and my property disseminated to the people to which I bequest them.  Under no circumstances will I bequest my property to the state.  State takes my property anyways.  When the state takes my property without my permission this is called confiscation.  Try again, because you're 100% wrong on this issue.

Maybe next they can take my "assault house" and you can argue that that's not confiscation either?  How about my "assault car"?  The fact that my property in question is a firearm does not alter this basic fact in any way.  

[BmorePat87]

(04-21-2021, 12:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not at all.  Since you want to go this route, let's.

I own "assault weapon".  I die.  The "assault weapon" still belongs to me, like any other piece of property I own, until my bequests are made and my property disseminated to the people to which I bequest them.  Under no circumstances will I bequest my property to the state.  State takes my property anyways.  When the state takes my property without my permission this is called confiscation.  Try again, because you're 100% wrong on this issue.

Maybe next they can take my "assault house" and you can argue that that's not confiscation either?  How about my "assault car"?  The fact that my property in question is a firearm does not alter this basic fact in any way.  

You attempted to use this as proof of a Democratic plot to confiscate guns. The state banned certain weapons and allowed the owners to keep them until they died. This is absolutely an irrational exaggeration of the policy and by no means comes close to suggesting that any bit of what you spent hours arguing was remotely true.

This is kind of sad...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-21-2021, 12:11 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: This could be a point of education here for me. In regard to the definition of an assault weapon being arbitrary, I thought that there was a legitimate definition for an assault rifle, defined by the U.S. military.

If you use the military definition then it's a weapon capable of more than semi-automatic fire.  No one in the military is carrying an AR pattern rifle that is only capable of semi-automatic fire.  So, using the definition you propose would mean no one who does not own a pre-ban machine gun actually owns an "assault weapon".

Quote:I haven’t been involved in much of the 2A talk, so I haven’t kept up on it, only being involved in minor discussions and watching from afar. Are the bills being pushed not targeting weaponry that falls under that definition?

Not at all.  As Bel correctly pointed out the bans target features or platforms.  Most politicians, especially Democratic ones, know absolutely nothing about firearms.  Features, such as a pistol grip, forward vertical grip, flash hider, or adjustable stock, do absolutely nothing to enhance the lethality of a firearm.

Quote:It can be a bit confusing since I am seeing the term assault weapon, and in the past I have seen the term assault rifle. I have seen people say that neither of them exist and/or have ridiculous definitions, but I have been under the impression that assault rifles are indeed a legitimate term for a select set of weaponry.

Again, using the military definition, it's a rifle capable of more than semi-automatic fire.  These are rare in civilian hands and have been used in single digit numbers of crimes spanning decades.  The basic fact is that criminals will use guns to commit criminal acts.  They will also completely ignore any firearms related laws that are passed because, you know, they're criminals.  These types of firearm's laws only restrict the ownership ability of people who actually care about following the law.  But don't forget, the same people who want to criminalize ownership also want lenient sentences against people who commit actual crimes against other citizens.  If you doubt this simply look up the platforms for the DA's in Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Seattle and Portland. 

In the new way of things cops are the criminals, criminals are the victims and the actual victims are invisible.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-21-2021, 12:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You attempted to use this as proof of a Democratic plot to confiscate guns.

Because they're confiscating guns.  This has been demonstrably proven.

Quote:The state banned certain weapons and allowed the owners to keep them until they died. This is absolutely an irrational exaggeration of the policy and by no means comes close to suggesting that any bit of what you spent hours arguing was remotely true.

Oh wait, so they're not taking property that doesn't belong to them?  Why don't you enlighten us as to the term you'd prefer to use for the government taking legally purchased private property away from someone?

Quote:This is kind of sad...

Yes, the Gordian knot you're tying yourself into in an attempt to avoid admitting that the government taking your property is not confiscation is sad.  Like I said, I don't think you can label yourself as not "hyper partisan" in this regard, because your desire to ignore objective facts on this issue demonstrates otherwise.

[BmorePat87]

(04-21-2021, 12:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because they're confiscating guns.  This has been demonstrably proven.



Oh wait, so they're not taking property that doesn't belong to them?  Why don't you enlighten us as to the term you'd prefer to use for the government taking legally purchased private property away from someone?


Yes, the Gordian knot you're tying yourself into in an attempt to avoid admitting that the government taking your property is not confiscation is sad.  Like I said, I don't think you can label yourself as not "hyper partisan" in this regard, because your desire to ignore objective facts on this issue demonstrates otherwise.

I'm being genuine when I say this is embarrassing for you. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-21-2021, 01:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm being genuine when I say this is embarrassing for you. 

Hahaha, ok.  Allow me to simplify this and then ask you a question.  For the purposes of this example I will use "me/my" or "I" as anyone who owns one of these "assault weapons".

I own a rifle that I legally purchased.

I pass away.  The rifle still belongs to me like any other piece of property I owned before my demise.

I bequeath said rifle to "x" person.

Instead of allowing that person to take possession of my property, that I bequeathed to them, the state comes in and takes it away.

What word would you use to describe the action of the state taking away my property?  Don't worry about being embarrassed, just be honest. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-21-2021, 12:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not at all.  As Bel correctly pointed out the bans target features or platforms.  Most politicians, especially Democratic ones, know absolutely nothing about firearms.  Features, such as a pistol grip, forward vertical grip, flash hider, or adjustable stock, do absolutely nothing to enhance the lethality of a firearm.

So, to expand on this, I'll include some of the text of the Virginia bill that failed, last year:

Quote:2. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle; (iii) a thumbhole stock; (iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (v) a bayonet mount; (vi) a grenade launcher; (vii) a flare launcher; (viii) a silencer; (ix) a flash suppressor; (x) a muzzle brake; (xi) a muzzle compensator; (xii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a silencer, (b) a flash suppressor, © a muzzle brake, or (d) a muzzle compensator; or (xiii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (xii);

Now, first, I must admit that my earlier statement was slightly hyperbolic because I said a bolt action when clearly the first line says semi-automatic, and I missed that point, yesterday. I was having a rough day. Anyway, to highlight why assault weapon definitions are superficial and ridiculous, let's talk about the Ruger Mini-14. This is a very popular rifle, especially for landowners that need to engage in predator control. These rifles probably run off more coyotes than any others (though I could go on and on about better coyote control methods, but that's a different thread). This is the standard model of that rifle.


Now, I'm a Ruger fan and I actually want one of these because I think it would be fun. As I said earlier, I'm a wood furniture guy and this rifle just hits me right. Though I also like the Mini-30, which uses the 7.62x39 round that an AK-47 chambers, so I haven't decided, yet. Anyway, this rifle would not qualify as an assault weapon under the law because while it has a detachable magazine, it doesn't have any of the other features out of the box that would trigger the law. However...


This is the exact same rifle with a different stock and threads on the barrel. This is an assault weapon according to that bill because it has three of the additional criteria needed to be an assault weapon. It operates the same way, has the same magazine capacity, everything. It doesn't change the lethality of the firearm in any way, but because the aesthetics have now changed, it's an assault weapon. Even without the threaded barrel, it would still be classified as one, which means that if you decide to take the first rifle and put a new stock on it, it immediately becomes an assault rifle. This is just one of a myriad of examples of how asinine the definitions are when it comes to these laws.

[KillerGoose]

(04-21-2021, 12:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you use the military definition then it's a weapon capable of more than semi-automatic fire.  No one in the military is carrying an AR pattern rifle that is only capable of semi-automatic fire.  So, using the definition you propose would mean no one who does not own a pre-ban machine gun actually owns an "assault weapon".



Not at all.  As Bel correctly pointed out the bans target features or platforms.  Most politicians, especially Democratic ones, know absolutely nothing about firearms.  Features, such as a pistol grip, forward vertical grip, flash hider, or adjustable stock, do absolutely nothing to enhance the lethality of a firearm.


Again, using the military definition, it's a rifle capable of more than semi-automatic fire.  These are rare in civilian hands and have been used in single digit numbers of crimes spanning decades.  The basic fact is that criminals will use guns to commit criminal acts.  They will also completely ignore any firearms related laws that are passed because, you know, they're criminals.  These types of firearm's laws only restrict the ownership ability of people who actually care about following the law.  But don't forget, the same people who want to criminalize ownership also want lenient sentences against people who commit actual crimes against other citizens.  If you doubt this simply look up the platforms for the DA's in Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Seattle and Portland. 

In the new way of things cops are the criminals, criminals are the victims and the actual victims are invisible.

DISCLAIMER - I’m going to leave the post up just because it contains some extra information on AR classification, but this is essentially reiterating what you were saying. I had posted this when I had just woken up and I had misunderstood, somehow, what you were saying.

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation. However, in regard to the AR definition, that isn’t the one I am familiar with. I am familiar with the following...

“ short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”

And here are the characteristics necessary to be coined an AR...

It must be capable of selective fire.

It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.

Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]

It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

It is possible that it has changed, I believe this definition originates from a U.S. Army Weaponry Identification book from 1970, but that is the one that stuck out in my head because it had strict guidelines on what classified. Looking into this more, I can see that there is an absolute difference between assault weapon and assault rifle. This article has been updated since I last looked at it and even points this out. If the objective is to provide a safer environment for citizens, I don’t believe they are going about it the right way by going after these “assault weapons”. I’m on board, what a weird definition for an assault weapon.

[Belsnickel]

(04-21-2021, 08:09 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: Gotcha, thanks for the explanation. However, in regard to the AR definition, that isn’t the one I am familiar with. I am familiar with the following...

“ short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”

And here are the characteristics necessary to be coined an AR...

It must be capable of selective fire.

It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.

Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]

It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

It is possible that it has changed, I believe this definition originates from a U.S. Army Weaponry Identification book from 1970, but that is the one that stuck out in my head because it had strict guidelines on what classified.

Selective-fire means that it is capable of automatic fire (or burst fire), which is what SSF was focusing on. You are working from the same definition, really.

[BmorePat87]

(04-21-2021, 01:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hahaha, ok.  Allow me to simplify this and then ask you a question.  For the purposes of this example I will use "me/my" or "I" as anyone who owns one of these "assault weapons".

I own a rifle that I legally purchased.

I pass away.  The rifle still belongs to me like any other piece of property I owned before my demise.

I bequeath said rifle to "x" person.

Instead of allowing that person to take possession of my property, that I bequeathed to them, the state comes in and takes it away.

What word would you use to describe the action of the state taking away my property?  Don't worry about being embarrassed, just be honest. 

You don't need to simplify anything. You responded to my post about most Americans supporting reasonable gun control by stating that the problem with my post was that the "end game" for Democrats was "confiscation". You've failed to substantiate that claim and I'm done entertaining this.

I'll leave you with this. You gave me shit a few days ago and said I was being emotional over trans rights. I'm not bothered by that as I won't ever compromise on my dad's humanity. Apply the same critique to your posts in this thread.

[KillerGoose]

(04-21-2021, 08:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Selective-fire means that it is capable of automatic fire (or burst fire), which is what SSF was focusing on. You are working from the same definition, really.

Yeah, I’m familiar with selective fire capabilities. For some reason, when I posted that, I thought he was saying something different. I had only been awake 10 minutes so that is my excuse. Lol.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-21-2021, 08:37 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You don't need to simplify anything. You responded to my post about most Americans supporting reasonable gun control by stating that the problem with my post was that the "end game" for Democrats was "confiscation". You've failed to substantiate that claim and I'm done entertaining this.

I don't need to substantiate it further, I've provided proof.  You fail to even answer the question posed to you, what is it called when the government takes your property without permission?  They fact you won't answer speaks volumes because you know the answer will undercut your entire argument.

Quote:I'll leave you with this. You gave me shit a few days ago and said I was being emotional over trans rights. I'm not bothered by that as I won't ever compromise on my dad's humanity. Apply the same critique to your posts in this thread.

First off, I didn't "give you shit".  You came into that thread both barrels blazing, super hot.  I get that it's a personal issue for you, and I only pointed it out because your posting style in that thread was extremely out of character.

As to your assertion, I'm just paying attention.  The Dems took the GOP's anti abortion playbook and applied it to firearms.  Don't go for everything at once, slowly chip away so every step seems small.  But, at the end of the day, you look back and realize the extent of what you've lost.  I don't even need to prove this, as one need look no further than the deep blue states and their ever increasing restrictions.  One need look no further than VA, as Bel points out above, to see what happens when you get a Dem majority at any level of government.  One need only hear the words coming out of the mouths of major presidential candidates, words that were not refuted by a single other person on stage.

If you're done trying to discuss this issue, no worries, but I don't find your characterization of me on this issue, or my interpretation of the facts at hand, to be accurate.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-21-2021, 08:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Selective-fire means that it is capable of automatic fire (or burst fire), which is what SSF was focusing on. You are working from the same definition, really.

Precisely correct.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-20-2021, 10:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah.



Yeah, as all men of fighting age are the militia I agree, it's very clear.  As we live in a more egalitarian age now, we should include women as well, don't you agree?



What is the purpose of this question?



Are you being prevented from getting nuclear weapons?  Just get some plutonium.


Silly rabbit, he's only going to sell them for bitcoin, do you have nay?

Yea they are counted. At least since the Spartan women. 

Who do you think the "free state" is defending against?

I don't think you can buy them. Deep state libs won't let you buy a nuke anywhere.

Neighbors dog told me dogecoin will be better than bitcoin.

[fredtoast]

(04-20-2021, 05:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred is as anti gun as he is ignorant of them.  Discussing this topic, or any topic really, with him is a waste of your time.

I know more about gun ownership and the enforcement of gun laws than SSF.  That is why he refuses to engage in a discussion with him.

The problem with SSF is that most of his arguments are based soley on his omnipotence. Show him polls on liberals position on gun laws and he says "Dems won't say what they really mean. I KNOW what they really want."  Show him a poll on gun ownership and he says "All gun owners are liars. I KNOW how many guns all people really own."  Show him a polce department that punishes an officer for misbehavior and he says "They are  basing their decision on politics not facts. I KNOW what really happened." Show him a jury finding a police officer guilty of misbehavior and he says " The jury made their decision based on fear instead of facts. I KNOW what really happened."

So if you like having a discussion with someone who merely cites his own omnipotence as proof of his arguments hva fun with SSF. 

[Mickeypoo]

(04-21-2021, 12:03 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you're exaggerating, completely undercutting your argument. 

What right does the gov't have to take something you lawfully own?  What if you want to pass it down to a son, daughter, etc.  Complete and utter BS.

[Mickeypoo]

(04-21-2021, 12:11 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: This could be a point of education here for me. In regard to the definition of an assault weapon being arbitrary, I thought that there was a legitimate definition for an assault rifle, defined by the U.S. military. I haven’t been involved in much of the 2A talk, so I haven’t kept up on it, only being involved in minor discussions and watching from afar. Are the bills being pushed not targeting weaponry that falls under that definition?

It can be a bit confusing since I am seeing the term assault weapon, and in the past I have seen the term assault rifle. I have seen people say that neither of them exist and/or have ridiculous definitions, but I have been under the impression that assault rifles are indeed a legitimate term for a select set of weaponry.

Maybe the ATF can clear it up for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nfCyhOX42g

[BmorePat87]

(04-21-2021, 12:37 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: What right does the gov't have to take something you lawfully own?  What if you want to pass it down to a son, daughter, etc.  Complete and utter BS.

Well the 4th and 5th Amendments first presented the conditions under which property could be seized over 230 years ago. 

[Mickeypoo]

(04-21-2021, 01:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm being genuine when I say this is embarrassing for you. 

It's definitely the other way around bro.  You should just stop.  

[Belsnickel]

(04-21-2021, 12:37 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: What right does the gov't have to take something you lawfully own?  What if you want to pass it down to a son, daughter, etc.  Complete and utter BS.

(04-21-2021, 12:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well the 4th and 5th Amendments first presented the conditions under which property could be seized over 230 years ago. 

Yeah, there are actually many reasons for your property to be seize. Not all of them I agree with, but some of them are so benign and accepted that we don't even think about them. Hell, zoning regulations are a form of government takings.