Do you support the second amendment?

[starshiptrooper]

Technically, the shotgun and the revolver are not semi-automatic. A semi-auto weapon uses some of the energy from the previously fired shot to ready the next one. The revolver and the shotgun both rely on a person working the action to ready the next shot.

However handguns are the most popular choice for criminals since they are lightweight and easily concealable.

 

[JonNC]

All of them, however, are one pull, one round.
Yes, semi-automatic is as you stated, but as you know, the anti-2nd crowd will try to conflate and deceive. This whole “assault weapons” imagery is just that.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Vonsalza’s understanding that there are no differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 is lacking.

The twist of the barrel, the chemical makeup of the powder, etc.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza’s understanding that there are no differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 is lacking.

No, I nailed it. One has a selector switch for automatic fire, one doesn’t. That’s it.

The twist of the barrel, the chemical makeup of the powder, etc.

You can buy an AR with just about any barrel twist you want (including milspec ) and I’m assuming “chemical makeup of powder” refers to the difference between .223cal Remington and 5.56mm NATO rounds? Nearly all civilian ARs fire both as both are readily available. Military surplus ammo is actually most of the ammo I own for my ARs.

I know you want to believe that the military issue and what’s in your gun store are notably different (as it pertains to ARs/M16/4s. They’re just not. Barring a selector switch, they’re literally the same rifle.

 

[starshiptrooper]

What is so scary about milspec weapons anyway? The military makes things durable and accurate, the honest citizen certainly has an interest in a weapon with both of those qualities.

 

[Vonsalza]

And they called Obama’s healthcare act, “The Affordable Care Act”, and it has made healthcare anything but affordable.

For you and me, sure. It got more expensive.

For folks with chronic illness? Yes, health insurance became affordable because it was illegal to price them out.

Simply accepting the redefining by some members of Congress or the anti-2nd movement isn’t something I’m tied to. Assault weapons are automatic.
But if you want to use the term, make sure people understand the difference.

And “assault style weapons” has become a boringly common term for the semi-automatic version of what is otherwise unambiguously military equipment.

Here’s another gem I found;
“Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud”

You just need to control the definition in order to suit your argument.

 

[Vonsalza]

What is so scary about milspec weapons anyway? The military makes things durable and accurate, the honest citizen certainly has an interest in a weapon with both of those qualities.

A question both I and the courts have had for the last 20 years is “Do they?”

Certainly plenty of other nations seem to hold back the chaos and anarchy caused by restricting the ownership of such weapons.

I think we need to have a sober realization that the legal challenges to the now-expired assault weapons ban failed for the most part. This gives some considerable evidence to the idea that you don’t have a “right” to these things, at least.

 

[starshiptrooper]

A question both I and the courts have had for the last 20 years is “Do they?”

Yes, for defense against those who would take my rights, be they the king’s men or thugs.

Certainly plenty of other nations seem to hold back the chaos and anarchy caused by restricting the ownership of such weapons.

Those other countries tend to be less diverse and looking at the racial stats on crime, that is definitely a factor. I grew in a neighborhood where there was an average of at least 1 gun per household. We never had a murder in over 20 years. It is not a gun problem, it is a people problem. Two more facts for you to consider.

1. Violent crime is highest among the races with the least amount of legal firearm ownership.
2. CCW permit holders are even better behaved than police officers.

I think we need to have a sober realization that the legal challenges to the now-expired assault weapons ban failed for the most part. This gives some considerable evidence to the idea that you don’t have a “right” to these things, at least.

The courts have gotten it wrong before when discussing rights. This not a persuasive argument. Though with the President Trump’s choice of Gorsuch and the decent possibility of another SCOTUS pick in the next few years, I would be willing to take a chance to settle the matter definitely on the legal side. If the Supreme Court ruled in my favor, would you acknowledge my right to own a weapon and cease and desist in your attempts to disarm me and other citizens?

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, for defense against those who would take my rights, be they the kings men or thugs.

Fair enough. I think you have the right to bear arms for exactly that reason!

I’m just not so sure that these particular rifles belong on the list of unrestricted “arms”. As you know, there are scores of “arms” that you cannot own merely for vague self-defense.

Perhaps readily available assault style weapons empowers would-be baddies a little too much; which is why other “arms” have been reasonably restricted for that very reason.

Two more facts for you to consider.

1. Crime is highest among the races with the least amount of legal firearm ownership.
2. CCW permit holders are even better behaved than police officers.

On #1, I don’t care about “crime” for the purposes of this discussion. I care about “gun crime” as its inherently heightened lethality. And this misleading statistic, even if demonstrably true (and I have my doubts) says nothing about causality; which is the most important thing here.

On #2 Awesome! I think this plays somewhat to my point. These are people “on-record” and are willing to put up the time and money (and training) required to get that permit.

Though if the Supreme Court ruled in my favor, would you acknowledge my right to own a weapon and cease and desist in your attempts to disarm me and other citizens?

You’d have to be a little more specific than the over-vague “disarm me and other citizens”.

I’m not challenging your right (or my right) to own a generically labelled “weapon”. I’m challenging the over-availability of assault-style weapons in particular and semi-automatics in general. Thus I think they should probably require a permit to own.

I think bolt-guns and maybe pump action shotguns should continue to be pretty unregulated, particularly in small things like .22lr. Their destructive capacity just isn’t that high, anecdotal stories aside.

To kill or wound 500 people from a hotel window with a bolt action, 5 round .30-06 would take a very long time. Own as many of those as you want.

 

[Cathoholic]

Vonsalza . . . .

.

Nowhere in the constitution are you given the right to any particular type of weapon . . .

.

Please readers of this thread notice this (above) from Vonsalza.

The Constitution doesn’t “give” me rights Vonsalza.

The Constitution recognizes my rights.

The Constitution does not give and Government "the right to any particular type of weapon " either.

So WHO do you think Vonsalza focuses in on to disarm?

The aspect of this formula that has beven responsible for the most numerous and egregious misuse of firearms?

. . . OR . . .

. . . or do you think Vonsalza will utilize his communications to disarm and infringe upon good, hard-working, law-abiding citizens?

And earlier we see Vonsalza doesn’t just stop at his attack on citizens but with an “elitist” outlook, takes an even MORE EXTREME aim against our poorer people.

THIS IS the mindset that we are observing here. Please recall that when dealing with these people.

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh good lord…

The Constitution doesn’t “give” me rights Vonsalza.
The Constitution recognizes my rights.

Sure. But it must recognize, define and limit them in a way that creates a functional legal framework that is binding upon all citizens.

So WHO do you think Vonsalza focuses in on to disarm?

As I’m advocating a permit system that only reduces future sales, I’m not “disarming” anyone.

or do you think Vonsalza will utilize his communications to disarm and infringe upon good, hard-working, law-abiding citizens?

A hard working citizen is exactly who will have these guns as their work will enable them to afford a permit.

 

[upant]

A hard working citizen is exactly who will have these guns as their work will enable them to afford a permit.

you keep repeating this but don’t seem to see the harm it does.

yes a permit system reduces guns but it only keeps guns from those who actually need them.

a permit system will not stop the gang banger, criminal or anyone intent on getting a gun illegally.

 

[Cathoholic]

We see Vonsalza (in post 1552) think that the Bill of Rights (the portion of the Constitution being discussed here) . . . .

.

. . . . creates a functional legal framework that is binding upon all citizens.

(Emphasis mine)

.
But the reason for these Amendments are to protect the citizens from Government over-reach.

.
It would have been much more accurate for Vonsalza to have said . . . .

.

. . . . creates a functional legal framework that is binding upon the Government.
.

The “legal framework” that Vonsalza cites is a partial truth.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

A hard working citizen is exactly who will have these guns as their work will enable them to afford a permit.

you keep repeating this but don’t seem to see the harm it does.

yes a permit system reduces guns but it only keeps guns from those who actually need them.

a permit system will not stop the gang banger, criminal or anyone intent on getting a gun illegally.

It does.

The guns that are already out there are out there. I agree completely.

Permits create a very real floor on pricing - even after they’ve made their way into the black market, because every future seller will seek recompense for the permit fee in addition to the value of the rifle.

While there will always be exceptions to everything, most of your criminals (particularly repeat offenders) are lower income. This effectively keeps these weapons out of more and more of their hands.

If the original permit was $500 and the value of the rifle is $500, even the black market seller wouldn’t take less than a grand for it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Vonsalza . . . .

Nowhere in the constitution are you given the right to any particular type of weapon . . .

The Constitution may claim to recognize certain rights as pre-existing, but the Constitution can be wrong in doing so. In this case I think it is wrong.

 

[starshiptrooper]

All well and good except for the fact that rifles are rarely used in crimes to begin with. As we have seen in the case of mass shooters, they rarely walk away alive so expense is not that much of an obstacle for them.

 

[JonNC]

As I’m advocating a permit system that only reduces future sales, I’m not “disarming” anyone.

So now you are targeting young people, making it harder for them to exercise their rights.
You list of targeted groups is growing.
Slippery slope?

 

[JonNC]

While there will always be exceptions to everything, most of your criminals (particularly repeat offenders) are lower income. This effectively keeps these weapons out of more and more of their hands.

Your plan, however, is not to target the repeat offender, but to also target the law abiding poor

 

[JonNC]

The Constitution may claim to recognize certain rights as pre-existing, but the Constitution can be wrong in doing so. In this case I think it is wrong.

The SCOTUS affirms that antecedent right in unequivocal terms.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The Constitution may claim to recognize certain rights as pre-existing, but the Constitution can be wrong in doing so. In this case I think it is wrong.

The SCOTUS affirms that antecedent right in unequivocal terms.

SCOTUS can be wrong too. Especially when they are affirming something beyond their domain, which is US law. If the SCOTUS affirmed something about quantum mechanics or the authenticity of the Mona Lisa, you would not expect their affirmation to carry any weight in those domains either.