Your Gun Control Laws

[6andcounting]

(12-08-2015, 07:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I still don't get the comparison between a car and firearm. I know many people use it on both sides for different ways to make an argument, but when one is used as intended it gets you from point A to point B safely. When the other is used as intended, something/someone dies.

If someone is arguing how dangerous a gun is in that hands of criminals or how common gun accidents are, it's pretty easy to draw a comparison to cars. Since the argument is that guns makes it too easy for criminals, then how law abiding use them isn't relevant to their argument. Same goes for cars. How law abiding citizens use them would be irrelevant (point A to B) when the parallel argument also ignores how law abiding citizens use them. Both guns and cars could be used by a criminal to purposefully kill.

I would agree that most people don't know how to properly construct cars as a parallel argument and end up with a shitty comparison full of holes.

[Belsnickel]

(12-08-2015, 07:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If a high-performance car is used as "intended" someone breaks the law and adds to the likelihood of someone dying.

But enough. You stated no one has shown you a valid argument why it is OK to own an assault rifle; I doubt today is any different.  

Actually, I stated I have not seen a valid argument that the citizenry needs to have semi-automatic weapons. There is a difference there. And I get that you're saying just because we don't need something doesn't mean we should ban it. The same argument can be used for oh so many things. Just my opinion is that if we don't need these tools designed to make killing easier, then why should be have them? That's my opinion part of it all.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-08-2015, 07:48 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: It is a cheap, durable,  versatile platform. 

Enough about your mother...







Don't free market principles play into the availability and cost of the ammo though?  Extending this out, wouldn't other cheap, durable, versatile 'platforms' (like that term btw) appear if more stringent restrictions of high capacity automatic weapons were put in place?

I'm all for people owning guns for personal protection, AK's, etc seem like overkill.  You want to protect your home and family from invasion and one-off psycho's, more power to you.  But anyone who thinks they're going to stand up to the gov in the constitutional sense in today's age is bat shit insane if you ask me.

 

[Rotobeast]

(12-08-2015, 08:16 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Enough about your mother...

Sorry.
It always subliminally creeps into conversation.
I suppose it's because she gushes about/from you so often.
Thanks for keeping a 65 year old happy.

(12-08-2015, 08:16 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Don't free market principles play into the availability and cost of the ammo though?  Extending this out, wouldn't other cheap, durable, versatile 'platforms' (like that term btw) appear if more stringent restrictions of high capacity automatic weapons were put in place?

I'm all for people owning guns for personal protection, AK's, etc seem like overkill.  You want to protect your home and family from invasion and one-off psycho's, more power to you.  But anyone who thinks they're going to stand up to the gov in the constitutional sense in today's age is bat shit insane if you ask me.

 

The ammo (7.62x39) is one of the most abundant on the planet (along with 9mm, 22 lr, and 12 ga).
It has been manufactured and exported by many countries.
I call it a platform as there are many legal modifications that can be made to make it user friendly (odd choice of words, I know).
The platform has also been altered to use as a shotgun.

As far as use for personal protection.....
A responsible gun owner would use frangible ammo, which would decrease the likelihood of penetrating through walls and harming anything other than the immediate target.

That being said, I'm not using a long-gun in home defense.
Quarters are far to close and an intruder would only have to wait around the corner, grab the barrel of the gun, thrust it into the air, and drop your sorry ass.
I prefer a 9mm handgun with a large capacity.

Oh, forgot some things on the AK.....
The tolerances are so loose on the bugger that you can bury it in the bottom of a flowing streambed, leave it for 2 weeks, come back, dig it up, and fire it without issue. (it's been done as a test by special forces)
I also want to add that the vast majority of AKs that come into the country are NOT automatic.
As a matter of fact, there are even a large amount that only accept 10 round magazines. (although not difficult to alter)

So, yeah....
I hope that helps some people understand the appeal.
I understand the stigma with the weapon, as it has probably killed more people on the planet than any other weapon.
If it helps anyone, Mikhail Kalashnikov (the weapons creator) regretted ever conceiving the firearm.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-13/ak-47-rifle-inventor-mikhail-kalashnikov-regrets-creating-weapon/5198396

[Vas Deferens]

(12-08-2015, 09:18 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Sorry.
It always subliminally creeps into conversation.
I suppose it's because she gushes about/from you so often.
Thanks for keeping a 65 year old happy.



The ammo (7.62x39) is one of the most abundant on the planet (along with 9mm, 22 lr, and 12 ga).
It has been manufactured and exported by many countries.
I call it a platform as there are many legal modifications that can be made to make it user friendly (odd choice of words, I know).
The platform has also been altered to use as a shotgun.

As far as use for personal protection.....
A responsible gun owner would use frangible ammo, which would decrease the likelihood of penetrating through walls and harming anything other than the immediate target.

That being said, I'm not using a long-gun in home defense.
Quarters are far to close and an intruder would only have to wait around the corner, grab the barrel of the gun, thrust it into the air, and drop your sorry ass.
I prefer a 9mm handgun with a large capacity.

Oh, forgot some things on the AK.....
The tolerances are so loose on the bugger that you can bury it in the bottom of a flowing streambed, leave it for 2 weeks, come back, dig it up, and fire it without issue. (it's been done as a test by special forces)
I also want to add that the vast majority of AKs that come into the country are NOT automatic.
As a matter of fact, there are even a large amount that only accept 10 round magazines. (although not difficult to alter)

So, yeah....
I hope that helps some people understand the appeal.
I understand the stigma with the weapon, as it has probably killed more people on the planet than any other weapon.
If it helps anyone, Mikhail Kalashnikov (the weapons creator) regretted ever conceiving the firearm.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-13/ak-47-rifle-inventor-mikhail-kalashnikov-regrets-creating-weapon/5198396

Good data. Thanks. 

Also way to preempt the gush response

[Benton]

(12-08-2015, 07:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If a high-performance car is used as "intended" someone breaks the law and adds to the likelihood of someone dying.

But enough. You stated no one has shown you a valid argument why it is OK to own an assault rifle; I doubt today is any different.  

How so? There's no laws broken if you're going from 0-60 mph in 3.2 provided it's a 65 mph speed limit. There's no laws broken if you're topping out at 160 on your own property, a racetrack or other places not on the highway. The intended use of the vehicle can be fulfilled in a lawful, legal way.

With an assault rifle, that's not really true. Even if you're using it as a critter gun, most states prohibit you from killing a few dozen of any animal in under a minute.

[Belsnickel]

(12-09-2015, 11:33 AM)Benton Wrote: How so? There's no laws broken if you're going from 0-60 mph in 3.2 provided it's a 65 mph speed limit. There's no laws broken if you're topping out at 160 on your own property, a racetrack or other places not on the highway. The intended use of the vehicle can be fulfilled in a lawful, legal way.

With an assault rifle, that's not really true. Even if you're using it as a critter gun, most states prohibit you from killing a few dozen of any animal in under a minute.

Even going off of that illegal usage, take two comparable situations:

Professional driver, ideal conditions, intended though illegal usage. Risk of injury or fatality?
Professional shooter, ideal conditions, intended though illegal usage. Risk of injury or fatality?

Obviously there is still a risk with the driver, but with the shooter that risk is 100%.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2015, 11:33 AM)Benton Wrote: How so? There's no laws broken if you're going from 0-60 mph in 3.2 provided it's a 65 mph speed limit. There's no laws broken if you're topping out at 160 on your own property, a racetrack or other places not on the highway. The intended use of the vehicle can be fulfilled in a lawful, legal way.

With an assault rifle, that's not really true. Even if you're using it as a critter gun, most states prohibit you from killing a few dozen of any animal in under a minute.

Just like a racetrack or other suitable places where a user can test the properties of their High performance vehicle; there are shooting ranges and other suitable location that a user can test the properties of their assault rifle.
 
There are also a number of unlawful acceleration laws on the books, so there may be laws broken simply from rapid acceleration.

I had a friend that just purchased a SCAR 17S for $2100, does he "need" it? No. Is it his right to own it lawfully? Yes

[Belsnickel]

(12-09-2015, 01:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just like a racetrack or other suitable places where a user can test the properties of their High performance vehicle; there are shooting ranges and other suitable location that a user can test the properties of their assault rifle.
 
There are also a number of unlawful acceleration laws on the books, so there may be laws broken simply from rapid acceleration.

I had a friend that just purchased a SCAR 17S for $2100, does he "need" it? No. Is it his right to own it lawfully? Yes

I wouldn't say it is his right to own it legally. The SCOTUS just refused to hear an assault weapons ban that was upheld by a federal appeals court, meaning the right to own a weapon such as a SCAR is not existent according to the courts.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2015, 02:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I wouldn't say it is his right to own it legally. The SCOTUS just refused to hear an assault weapons ban that was upheld by a federal appeals court, meaning the right to own a weapon such as a SCAR is not existent according to the courts.

He doesn't live in Chicago.

[Belsnickel]

(12-09-2015, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He doesn't live in Chicago.

He doesn't need to for my statement to be accurate. He may be able to legally own one at his current location at this present time, but the current legal precedent is that he does not have a "right" to own such a weapon and so therefore at some point in time his ownership of that weapon could become unlawful.

The lawful ownership status is what is dependent upon his location in this country, but wherever he is in this country he does not have a right to own said firearm.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2015, 02:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He doesn't need to for my statement to be accurate. He may be able to legally own one at his current location at this present time, but the current legal precedent is that he does not have a "right" to own such a weapon and so therefore at some point in time his ownership of that weapon could become unlawful.

The lawful ownership status is what is dependent upon his location in this country, but wherever he is in this country he does not have a right to own said firearm.

Sure he has a right; it's called the 2nd Amendment. There is nothing illegal about his ownership, so he has a 2nd Amendment Right to own such a weapon until such a time when/if the ownership becomes illegal.

[Belsnickel]

(12-09-2015, 02:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure he has a right; it's called the 2nd Amendment. There is nothing illegal about his ownership, so he has a 2nd Amendment Right to own such a weapon until such a time when/if the ownership becomes illegal.

If he had a right to own such a weapon then bans would not be upheld on such weapons. To have a right to something means the government cannot make it illegal for you to carry out the action or to own something. Since the precedent is currently that the government can make it illegal to own such a firearm, there is no right to it. According to the courts we have a right to own firearms on an individual level, but that right is not unlimited and the government can ban certain types. Those types of firearms the government has the ability to ban are firearms we do not have the right to possess.

[Benton]

(12-09-2015, 01:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just like a racetrack or other suitable places where a user can test the properties of their High performance vehicle; there are shooting ranges and other suitable location that a user can test the properties of their assault rifle.
 
There are also a number of unlawful acceleration laws on the books, so there may be laws broken simply from rapid acceleration.

I had a friend that just purchased a SCAR 17S for $2100, does he "need" it? No. Is it his right to own it lawfully? Yes

To the bold, that wasn't the issue. The issue was the legality of it based off form and function. Form and function of a sports car is to go fast. You said you can't legally do that... but you can. Form and function of an assault rifle is to kill things quickly. Outside of mice and maybe squirrels, there's not much you can kill in large volume without breaking a law.

And if you're going to kill mice with an assault rifle, you're probably an idiot.

As far as your friend... and? The issue isn't if it is legal, it's if it should be legal. Because while your friend is legal to have it, so is a terrorist. Why? Because until he uses it, he's not a terrorist, he's just a legal gun owner. And there's no way to separate the two until one is misused.

When I was a kid (granted, this was the late 80s, early 90s), I might have known a couple guys who might have made things that blew up, and those guys might have thrown them in the nearby lake, in gravel pits and other places in rural western Kentucky. Nobody got hurt and it was a lot of fun. Should we deregulate homemade explosives since some kids from Kentucky used them 25ish years ago and no one got injured? They weren't always illegal, so should we go back to that?

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2015, 02:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If he had a right to own such a weapon then bans would not be upheld on such weapons. To have a right to something means the government cannot make it illegal for you to carry out the action or to own something. Since the precedent is currently that the government can make it illegal to own such a firearm, there is no right to it. According to the courts we have a right to own firearms on an individual level, but that right is not unlimited and the government can ban certain types. Those types of firearms the government has the ability to ban are firearms we do not have the right to possess.

Your attempt to pick the nit aside: He has a right to own the weapon, it is covered in the U.S. Constitution and he is doing so legally and within the laws of his state (11th Amendment). Double down on the "He doesn't have the right" slant if you want.

[Belsnickel]

(12-09-2015, 02:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your attempt to pick the nit aside: He has a right to own the weapon, it is covered in the U.S. Constitution and he is doing so legally and within the laws of his state (11th Amendment). Double down on the "He doesn't have the right" slant if you want.

11th Amendment has nothing to do with my statements. But hey, if you want to continue being wrong, you go right on ahead. There is a reason I make very specific statements, picking the nit as you like to put it.

[CageTheBengal]

We live in a nation that spends 3% of its budget on education. We have shared textbooks, a lack of modern technology in our schools, art and music classes are falling to the wayside and we have a skills shortage in this country.

With all this in mind some of you want to make gun safety a mandatory course for graduation? Get real. No wonder our education system is a joke. The only time education reform is discussed is when their is a debate about praying in school or involving fire arms in the classroom in some way shape or form. Gun control is a hot button issue for a lot of people in this country and forcing it upon kids because some think it's what this country is all about is wrong.

[*bfine32*]

(12-09-2015, 02:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 11th Amendment has nothing to do with my statements. But hey, if you want to continue being wrong, you go right on ahead. There is a reason I make very specific statements, picking the nit as you like to put it.

Let's make this simple and we will let those that can read determine who is wrong.

Does my friend have the right to own the gun?

I specifically say "yes", you say......
 

[Rotobeast]

Ok... let me get this straight

The Federal Government does not give me the right to have a semi-automatic assault rifle, but I can send the proper forms to the BATF (run by the Federal Government) and given permission to own a fully automatic machine gun.

Is this a "right" vs "privilege" thing and discussion of strict definition of each ?

[Belsnickel]

(12-09-2015, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's make this simple and we will let those that can read determine who is wrong.

Does my friend have the right to own the gun?

I specifically say "yes", you say......

No. Your friend does not have a right to own the SCAR, specifically.