03-05-2018, 05:09 PM
(03-05-2018, 10:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: Good :)
I get the jist of the argument, sophisticated as this point was. Thing is though, nobody, at least nobody serious I heard from, even talks about "disarming the populace", no democrat I know of said anything like that (only Trump actually did, but well). One might still accuse them of hidden agendas, but at this point the argument turns really disingenuous to begin with. The awful Nazi analogue aside. [I'm sure the left is waaay worse though :) ]
Doing so would be blatantly unconstitutional, so I would hope no federal politician would advocate such a thing. Ironically, the Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the right to own a firearm for self defense purposes, District of Columbia v. Heller, was brought before the court because the District Of Columbia attempted to ban all handguns within its limits. In overreaching with a gun ban they actually achieved the opposite effect.
Quote:Also, there's a bunch of distinctly non-totalitarian governments that have gun restrictions too. Gun restrictions do not equal totalitarism in the making.
No serious person says that, on its own, is convincing evidence of such. Both lung cancer and a cold can cause a bad cough. Having a cough, though, is not sufficient evidence that you have lung cancer.
Quote:Since you dared to quote me :), may I ask a serious question. Why is it ok to ban grenade launchers, but a full assault on people's rights to ban assault rifles? What's the difference.
You're asking for a long discussion here. First off, I will treat your grenade launcher question as serious. A grenade launcher is designed to fill a blast area with shrapnel. Within that area its effects are indiscriminate. Also, a grenade launcher is not as precise as a rifle. Both qualities make it a poor option for self defense. Additionally, a grenade launcher has little in common with firearms already in common use, and that have been in common use for decades.
I'll return to the idea of an "assault rifle" in a moment. Prior to that I would point out that AR's, AK's and other magazine fed semi-automatic weapons have been in public hands for close to fifty years. There is precedent in the public possessing them, nor were the "mass shootings" of today as big a concern. Ironically, the homicide rate in the 60's, 70's and 80's was considerably higher than the rate now. The crime rate has been, until recently, dropping every years since about 1992. Within those twenty-five years the number of firearms in private possession has exploded.
Now we'll return to this question, what is an "assault rifle? Is it a particular feature, a mix of features or the ability to accept a detachable magazine? The traditional definition is a man portable rifle capable of selective fire. There are very few such weapons in the hands of civilians in this country, and they have almost never been used in a criminal act. If we allow for the features argument, what features do we use? What makes an AR15 more deadly than an M14 or an M1 Garand? When someone can actually answer these questions then you can actually start talking about what should, and should not, be banned.
