Question For Anti-Gun Dems

[Au165]

(04-20-2021, 04:10 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Foreign and domestic.

§2390. Enlistment to serve against United States
Whoever enlists or is engaged within the United States or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, with intent to serve in armed hostility against the United States, shall be fined under this title 1 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 812; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(B), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)

§2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

[fredtoast]

(04-20-2021, 04:10 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Foreign or domestic.

Not in 2A.

[Mickeypoo]

(04-20-2021, 04:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The number I saw was 11 million AR-15s. But there are other guns that fall in the loose definition of "assault weapons".

From my own personal experience I have known a lot of gun owners and very few of them own anything that would be considered an "assault weapon".

I bet they do under Cuomo.

[fredtoast]

(04-20-2021, 04:20 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I bet they do under Cuomo.

And as usual you would be wrong. 

That is what happens when you support arguments with stuff you just make up in yoir head.

Seems like a preety popular tactic among the crowd here that is against making gun owners take responsibiliry for ther own weapons.

[Mickeypoo]

(04-20-2021, 04:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And as usual you would be wrong. 

That is what happens when you support arguments with stuff you just make up in yoir head.

Seems like a preety popular tactic among the crowd here that is against making gun owners take responsibiliry for ther own weapons.

Huh?  Make up in my head?  NY makes almost everything an "assault weapon".  Pistol grip on my 10/22.  OMG it's an "assault weapon"!  Adjustable stock.   OMG it's an "assault weapon"!  Removeable mag with adjustable stock.  OMG it's an "assault weapon"!

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

[fredtoast]

(04-20-2021, 04:53 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Huh?  Make up in my head?  NY makes almost everything an "assault weapon".  Pistol grip on my 10/22.  OMG it's an "assault weapon"!  Adjustable stock.   OMG it's an "assault weapon"!  Removeable mag with adjustable stock.  OMG it's an "assault weapon"!

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

Yes, made up in your head. I know lots of people who own hand guns for home defense that do not qualify as assault weapons under New York law. I also know people who own hunting rifles and shotguns that are not "assault weapons"

Your claim that "everything" is an assault weapon in New York is total BS.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-20-2021, 03:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I cannot deny that it is hard to change the minds of anyone refusing to look critically and instead focusing on the comments of a few as if they guide the many, but I'm not concerned with trying to convince those irrational people. It is only tainted to some if they're refusing to be honest. 

That kind of condescension (not directed at me I know) only solidifies people's positions.  I do think you're displaying some naivete on the Dems position on guns, but I also understand you're not going to change your mind.  I will conclude by stating that your position on this is not objective fact.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-20-2021, 04:53 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Huh?  Make up in my head?  NY makes almost everything an "assault weapon".  Pistol grip on my 10/22.  OMG it's an "assault weapon"!  Adjustable stock.   OMG it's an "assault weapon"!  Removeable mag with adjustable stock.  OMG it's an "assault weapon"!

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

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.

[Belsnickel]

(04-20-2021, 04:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The number I saw was 11 million AR-15s. But there are other guns that fall in the loose definition of "assault weapons".

From my own personal experience I have known a lot of gun owners and very few of them own anything that would be considered an "assault weapon".

I'd wager a sizable sum that you are wrong. I am a Fudd to the gun community. I'm a wood furniture lovin' certified Range Safety Officer that doesn't own any of those scary black rifles. When Virginia was contemplating their AWB last year, I would've had to give up some things had it passed. Granted, it's because my standard capacity magazine for my pistol was being labeled as high capacity, but that falls under the AWB language. There are bolt action hunting rifles I have seen that would have qualified as an assault weapon according to that bill. What qualifies as an assault weapon is arbitrary, superficial, and completely pointless.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-20-2021, 06:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'd wager a sizable sum that you are wrong. I am a Fudd to the gun community. I'm a wood furniture lovin' certified Range Safety Officer that doesn't own any of those scary black rifles. When Virginia was contemplating their AWB last year, I would've had to give up some things had it passed. Granted, it's because my standard capacity magazine for my pistol was being labeled as high capacity, but that falls under the AWB language. There are bolt action hunting rifles I have seen that would have qualified as an assault weapon according to that bill. What qualifies as an assault weapon is arbitrary, superficial, and completely pointless.

Succinctly and logically put.  Also 100% true.  Kudos! 

[BmorePat87]

(04-20-2021, 05:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That kind of condescension (not directed at me I know) only solidifies people's positions.  I do think you're displaying some naivete on the Dems position on guns, but I also understand you're not going to change your mind.  I will conclude by stating that your position on this is not objective fact.

I’m not making excuses for hyper partisan people refusing to accept reality

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-20-2021, 06:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I’m not making excuses for hyper partisan people refusing to accept reality

Your position honestly comes off as hyper partisan as theirs in this instance.  One need look no further than to the rash of gun control laws that are introduced anytime a state gets a Dem majority in their government.  One need look no further than CA and other deep blue states to know that they continue to chip away every year with more and more restrictions that do absolutely nothing to prevent gun violence.  Ironically, at the same time they advocate for less incarceration and lighter sentences for actual criminals.

So, no, I don't think you have a high ground to look down on "those people" in regard to this issue.

[BmorePat87]

(04-20-2021, 06:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your position honestly comes off as hyper partisan as theirs in this instance.  One need look no further than to the rash of gun control laws that are introduced anytime a state gets a Dem majority in their government.  One need look no further than CA and other deep blue states to know that they continue to chip away every year with more and more restrictions that do absolutely nothing to prevent gun violence.  Ironically, at the same time they advocate for less incarceration and lighter sentences for actual criminals.

So, no, I don't think you have a high ground to look down on "those people" in regard to this issue.

Nothing about my post was hyper partisan. I called for sensible gun control and I pushed back against a demonstrably false narrative.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-20-2021, 06:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Nothing about my post was hyper partisan. I called for sensible gun control and I pushed back against a demonstrably false narrative.

Except it's not demonstrably false.  They already have mandatory confiscation in CA, you think is demonstrably false to think it could happen in other states as well?

[BmorePat87]

(04-20-2021, 06:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except it's not demonstrably false.  They already have mandatory confiscation in CA, you think is demonstrably false to think it could happen in other states as well?

Are you referring to California seizing guns from people who failed background checks?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-20-2021, 07:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Are you referring to California seizing guns from people who failed background checks?

No, I'm talking about their "assault weapons" ban and the fact that your property will be seized upon your death as your "assault weapons" are non-transferable.

[BmorePat87]

(04-20-2021, 07:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I'm talking about their "assault weapons" ban and the fact that your property will be seized upon your death as your "assault weapons" are non-transferable.

So the current owners are allowed the keep the weapon?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-20-2021, 07:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So the current owners are allowed the keep the weapon?

Until they die, yeah, then it's confiscated.

[BmorePat87]

(04-20-2021, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Until they die, yeah, then it's confiscated.

So you're exaggerating, completely undercutting your argument. 

[KillerGoose]

(04-20-2021, 06:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Succinctly and logically put.  Also 100% true.  Kudos! 

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.