NationStates

The Andrewtopian Republic wrote:Here's where I stand:
-total ban on fully automatic weapons
-tighter handgun regulations; stronger background checks, a registry system, and a pistol license similar to a drivers' license

Basically, I see no legitimate reason to own an AK-47. There are better things out there for hunting or range shooting. And I can see wanting to own a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense or hunting, but due to the high rate of pistol crime, tighter regulations are obviously needed. A registry and license system should suffice.

An AKM is actually far more suitable for home defense than a pistol. When loaded with JSP rounds it doesn't overpenetrate and makes a large wound.
And because it has a stock it is also much less likely to miss than a pistol and poses less of a threat to neighbors.

And because has the same sustainable rate-of-fire as a bolt-action rifle, it's no more dangerous in a mass shooting.

The Andrewtopian Republic wrote:Here's where I stand:
-total ban on fully automatic weapons
-tighter handgun regulations; stronger background checks, a registry system, and a pistol license similar to a drivers' license

Basically, I see no legitimate reason to own an AK-47. There are better things out there for hunting or range shooting. And I can see wanting to own a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense or hunting, but due to the high rate of pistol crime, tighter regulations are obviously needed. A registry and license system should suffice.

100% agree, i think every other sane person will to.

An all-out ban on Assault rifles is just stupid. Right now, ones currently in America are asked to be registered in a database. Not taking them away, just being registered. However there are a few things I want to see happen.

1) Close the gun show loophole.
2) Close loopholes that can make buying an illegal gun possible. (Thanks BigJimP on the MG example)
3) NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL BAN
4) Registration of all currently owned assault weapons from their owners.

Dilange wrote:An all-out ban on Assault rifles is just stupid. Right now, ones currently in America are asked to be registered in a database. Not taking them away, just being registered. However there are a few things I want to see happen.

1) Close the gun show loophole.
2) Close loopholes that can make buying an illegal gun possible. (Thanks BigJimP on the MG example)
3) NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL BAN
4) Registration of all currently owned assault weapons from their owners.

Why should law abiding citizens be required to register weapons, since it has been ruled that it would be a violation of a criminals' 5th Amendment right. See U.S. v. Haynes.

Seems to me criminals in this sense have better protections, and thus would be better to break a law requiring registration.

DEC-LAND wrote:

Hungry wrote:Ban Everything, Legalize Anything, Republicans 2020.

I don't think any weapons should be necessarily banned, but a Magazine Limit (Amount of Rounds) and an amount of Magazines you can purchase a year limit should be put.

May I just say that most of the ammo and fire-arm used in murders are illegally purchased

source

The Andrewtopian Republic wrote:Here's where I stand:
-total ban on fully automatic weapons
-tighter handgun regulations; stronger background checks, a registry system, and a pistol license similar to a drivers' license

Basically, I see no legitimate reason to own an AK-47. There are better things out there for hunting or range shooting. And I can see wanting to own a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense or hunting, but due to the high rate of pistol crime, tighter regulations are obviously needed. A registry and license system should suffice.

The problem with requiring a license in this sense is that is it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held that the government may not require a license to exercise a right, we can also look to the 9th Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
And since pistols are common use firearms, to me these would fall under the same line of thinking here.
The other issue in requiring a license, is that you are turning a right into a privilege much like the issuance of a drivers license in order to operate a vehicle on public roads.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Dilange wrote:An all-out ban on Assault rifles is just stupid. Right now, ones currently in America are asked to be registered in a database. Not taking them away, just being registered. However there are a few things I want to see happen.

1) Close the gun show loophole.
2) Close loopholes that can make buying an illegal gun possible. (Thanks BigJimP on the MG example)
3) NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL BAN
4) Registration of all currently owned assault weapons from their owners.

Why should law abiding citizens be required to register weapons, since it has been ruled that it would be a violation of a criminals' 5th Amendment right. See U.S. v. Haynes.

Seems to me criminals in this sense have better protections, and thus would be better to break a law requiring registration.

Because registration makes gun tracing easy in crime. I support registration of all guns for that reason. It helps solve firearm crime a lot easy. Law-abiding citizens do not have to worry, since they wont be doing any crime.

Also when police are called to a residence, they can look up if the owner owns any guns. That way they can take precaution against the possibility of an armed confrontation. Again, law abiding citizens dont have to worry.

So why is this bad to law-abiding gun owners?

Dilange wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:
Why should law abiding citizens be required to register weapons, since it has been ruled that it would be a violation of a criminals' 5th Amendment right. See U.S. v. Haynes.

Seems to me criminals in this sense have better protections, and thus would be better to break a law requiring registration.

Because registration makes gun tracing easy in crime. I support registration of all guns for that reason. It helps solve firearm crime a lot easy. Law-abiding citizens do not have to worry, since they wont be doing any crime.

Also when police are called to a residence, they can look up if the owner owns any guns. That way they can take precaution against the possibility of an armed confrontation. Again, law abiding citizens dont have to worry.

So why is this bad to law-abiding gun owners?

Then why did Canada scrap their long gun registry just last year, if it's so useful?

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Dilange wrote:An all-out ban on Assault rifles is just stupid. Right now, ones currently in America are asked to be registered in a database. Not taking them away, just being registered. However there are a few things I want to see happen.

1) Close the gun show loophole.
2) Close loopholes that can make buying an illegal gun possible. (Thanks BigJimP on the MG example)
3) NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL BAN
4) Registration of all currently owned assault weapons from their owners.

Why should law abiding citizens be required to register weapons, since it has been ruled that it would be a violation of a criminals' 5th Amendment right. See U.S. v. Haynes.

Haynes pointed out a loop hole that allowed a regulated firearm to be legally acquired without having to register them, this loop hole has been closed.
the firearms registration law has been changed to close this loophole and requirement to register has been upheld.

Idaho Conservatives wrote:

Dilange wrote:
Because registration makes gun tracing easy in crime. I support registration of all guns for that reason. It helps solve firearm crime a lot easy. Law-abiding citizens do not have to worry, since they wont be doing any crime.

Also when police are called to a residence, they can look up if the owner owns any guns. That way they can take precaution against the possibility of an armed confrontation. Again, law abiding citizens dont have to worry.

So why is this bad to law-abiding gun owners?

Then why did Canada scrap their long gun registry just last year, if it's so useful?

Budget reasons, as far as I read.

Idaho Conservatives wrote:

Dilange wrote:
Because registration makes gun tracing easy in crime. I support registration of all guns for that reason. It helps solve firearm crime a lot easy. Law-abiding citizens do not have to worry, since they wont be doing any crime.

Also when police are called to a residence, they can look up if the owner owns any guns. That way they can take precaution against the possibility of an armed confrontation. Again, law abiding citizens dont have to worry.

So why is this bad to law-abiding gun owners?

Then why did Canada scrap their long gun registry just last year, if it's so useful?

because the effect is believed to be severely diminished by other newer firearms regulation, so there was little justification for the extra cost.

The Andrewtopian Republic wrote:Here's where I stand:
-total ban on fully automatic weapons
-tighter handgun regulations; stronger background checks, a registry system, and a pistol license similar to a drivers' license

Basically, I see no legitimate reason to own an AK-47. There are better things out there for hunting or range shooting. And I can see wanting to own a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense or hunting, but due to the high rate of pistol crime, tighter regulations are obviously needed. A registry and license system should suffice.

Secondly,full-auto firearms have long been all but banned at a federal level.Paradoxically,legal owners of such guns are some of the most law-abiding citizens you will ever meet.There has only been 1 single incident involving such guns in over 70 years since the law came into effect.And the perpetrator was actually - here it comes - a police officer.
Thirdly,rifles HAVE to have a full-auto capability to be considered "Assault rifles" - another example of Liberal misinformation and fearmongering.Oh and did I mention how the Clinton Assault Weapons ban was complete bullshit? Guess what.Having a fucking bayonet mount or a telescoping stock on my rifle won't make it anymore deadly.It will just make it look more threatening to the sheeple.

True story.

Idaho Conservatives wrote:

Dilange wrote:
Because registration makes gun tracing easy in crime. I support registration of all guns for that reason. It helps solve firearm crime a lot easy. Law-abiding citizens do not have to worry, since they wont be doing any crime.

Also when police are called to a residence, they can look up if the owner owns any guns. That way they can take precaution against the possibility of an armed confrontation. Again, law abiding citizens dont have to worry.

So why is this bad to law-abiding gun owners?

Then why did Canada scrap their long gun registry just last year, if it's so useful?

One the ROI was dismal as it was exceedingly expensive to maintain, the other issue is criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime and would-be criminals also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Divair wrote:The US military spending is almost half of the entire globe's. Unless you somehow manage to convince the rest of the planet to join the war, and then someone efficiently bring them over and supply them, you cannot beat the US military on its own home territory.

Point taken, but you would be amiss to dismiss China, Russia and oh hell, throw in North Korea, those countries would love the opportunity to jump at the chance to take advantage of another American civil war.

because it is no longer the cold war and civil war is bad for business.
If anything they would be more willing to back the government since the rebels would be less inclined to trade.

Yes, certain weapons should be banned. However, the state should really try to present a reasonable definition of assault weapon.

As for the OP's arguments:

1) Needs a source. And even with a source, it is irrelevant.
2) Needs a source as well. And even then, it is irrelevant. Preventing 1% of murders in the country is worth it. These are not mannequins we are talking about. It's innocent people who have the right to live, and who have given the state the duty to keep them alive.
3) I'm tired of this argument. It's painfully unrealistic in many ways.
First, it implies that the American legal, political and defense systems are so feeble that a dictatorship could take control at any moment in the near future. This is an entirely unrealistic concept. After 200 years of practically uninterrupted democracy and civil liberties, and with a population as paranoid and obsessed with "civil liberties", a dictatorship is impossible.
Second, it seems to imply that a bunch of untrained and unfit civilians armed with a few rifles could defeat the bulk of the American Armed Forces. Seriously? The same Armed Forces that can blow entire buildings up with drones, without risking any casualties on their own side? The same Armed Forces that has some of the world's best equipment and armored vehicles? The same Armed Forces that has the insanely advanced B-2 and F-22 aircrafts at their disposal?

No, "assault weapons' shouldn't be banned.

Alekera wrote:

Republica Newland wrote:
I.. can't even..

"Carry a hammer" is the apogee of gun control wisdom. Much like "buy a dog". NS is turning into a meme factory.

Or in the words of Joe Biden "Buy a shotgun... buy a shotgun!"

Yes, and "Fire two blasts off the porch if anyone scares you, honey." FINALLY a voice of reason in the debate!

Jormengand wrote:Despite their stupid definition, yes. Along with all other guns. If you have a legitimate use for them, get a permit.

And if you have a legitimate grievance and want to assemble or petition your government for a redress of said grievances, get a permit.
...
Wait.

Besides, there are large problems with may-issue permitting. Namely, that it's classist as hell and highly prone toexploitation and ill use by the one doing the issuing.

The Andrewtopian Republic wrote:Here's where I stand:
-total ban on fully automatic weapons (1)
-tighter handgun regulations (2); stronger background checks (3), a registry system (4), and a pistol license similar to a drivers' license (5)

Basically, I see no legitimate reason to own an AK-47 (6). There are better things out there for hunting or range shooting (7). And I can see wanting to own a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense or hunting, but due to the high rate of pistol crime, tighter regulations are obviously needed (8). A registry and license system should suffice (9).

1) Because lord knows the one crime we've had committed in the last 60 years with a fully automatic weapon is just such a terrible trend.

2) I would like to applaud you for at least applying gun-control logic appropriately. Handguns are the problem, not 'assault weapons'.

3) What's wrong with what we have now? Do you mean tighten the restrictions from felony-convictions disqualifying one from purchasing a gun to something else or what? I always hear this but never any details.

4) No.

5) See #4.

6) Recreational shooting, target shooting, competitive shooting, historical reenactment, collecting, aesthetic appreciation, hunting (although one would obviously have the selector set to semi-auto instead of full for this practice).

7) I'm surprised your utterance of these words hasn't brought Spreewerke here. To boil down to the essence of the point that would be made here, the design (not the actual rifle itself since their old and many are likely in rough shape now) has pretty well proven to be quite durable and the round is actually quite good for hunting deer.

Once again, bravo for addressing the right problem with gun-control. I don't agree with what you propose, but it's refreshing to hear someone on your side talking about the problem and not just getting very up in arms over rifles that look scary.

9) I disagree. Can the registry, can the licensing. Federally requiring all transfers go through FFL dealers (and go through the NICS check and form 4473 required) would solve the problem without infringing on gun owners rights. That is the system that should be argued for (Plus, it dramatically decreases cost as there is less administrative overhead).

Dilange wrote:Because registration makes gun tracing easy in crime. I support registration of all guns for that reason. It helps solve firearm crime a lot easy. Law-abiding citizens do not have to worry, since they wont be doing any crime. (1)

Also when police are called to a residence, they can look up if the owner owns any guns (2). That way they can take precaution against the possibility of an armed confrontation. Again, law abiding citizens dont have to worry.

So why is this bad to law-abiding gun owners (3)?

1) See directly above point #9.

2) This is not something the police have any right to know unless there has been some crime committed with those guns. Cops don't get to look up one's political affiliation to make sure they don't pose a threat, neither should they know if a citizen owns a firearm.

3) Well, for one thing, when new measures are enacted x years down the road that may not be as just and sensible as one would hope (I don't know, like requiring cops inspect your home if you own any weapons every year as was just proposed in Oregon) it hangs law-abiding gun owners on a very short rope.

Liriena wrote:Yes, certain weapons should be banned. However, the state should really try to present a reasonable definition of assault weapon.
[snip]

There IS no reasonable definition of assault weapon. The term is as artificial and pointless as "Red-70" off of the side of an ingredients list. No definition can be reasonable because those weapons termed 'assault weapons' (when they aren't nonexistent firearms from companies that went defunct years ago or already regulated and controlled automatic weapons, as a number of weapons named in the Feinstein bill are) are functionally identical to every other semiautomatic rifle in civilian hands.

Occupied Deutschland wrote:And if you have a legitimate grievance and want to assemble or petition your government for a redress of said grievances, get a permit.
...
Wait.

Besides, there are large problems with may-issue permitting. Namely, that it's classist as hell and highly prone toexploitation and ill use by the one doing the issuing.

Not quite sure what you mean here. You don't need a permit to communicate with the government; nor am I suggesting you should. Nor is a gun required for communication, contrary to popular belief.

So by the same logic, we should ban people because some people are classist and exploit each other? Revolutionary.

Divair wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
Ask the Infantry.

Ask them what? How unrealistic fantasies become reality? Do they have experience in that?

Last I heard the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgency are both still functioning despite our giving up and leaving the area.

The idea of a war of attrition conducted with Guerrilla tactics being able to win is anything but far fetched.

The only thing that is a fantasy seems to be the idea that technology is able to contain the will of the people.

Jormengand wrote:

Occupied Deutschland wrote:And if you have a legitimate grievance and want to assemble or petition your government for a redress of said grievances, get a permit.
...
Wait.

Besides, there are large problems with may-issue permitting. Namely, that it's classist as hell and highly prone toexploitation and ill use by the one doing the issuing.

Not quite sure what you mean here. You don't need a permit to communicate with the government; nor am I suggesting you should. Nor is a gun required for communication, contrary to popular belief. (1)

So by the same logic, we should ban people because some people are classist and exploit each other (2)? Revolutionary.

1) The logic behind both proposals is the same. The same logic applied to similar dilemmas with different results is generally a sign of a problem in thinking.

2) My turn, not quite sure what you mean here. No banning of people was referenced or even a plausible point (even if it was a reductio ad absurdum). Having a system of 'may-issue' permits will lead to those being issued discriminating. Such discrimination is likely to take similar forms because some people are classist and exploit each other.

It wasn't a proposal to ban people. It was a proposal to keep people from having the power to exploit other people.

greed and death wrote:The only thing that is a fantasy seems to be the idea that technology is able to contain the will of the people.

Sorry, but can an AK-47 even get through a tank? Can it even hit a fighter plane?

Jormengand wrote:

greed and death wrote:The only thing that is a fantasy seems to be the idea that technology is able to contain the will of the people.

Sorry, but can an AK-47 even get through a tank? Can it even hit a fighter plane?

No.

But it can hold up the driver of the oil truck that fuels both the tanks and the fighter planes.

Everybody forgets who keeps all that fancy military equipment running.

Tule wrote:

Jormengand wrote:Sorry, but can an AK-47 even get through a tank? Can it even hit a fighter plane?

No.

But it can hold up the driver of the oil truck that fuels both the tanks and the fighter planes.

Everybody forgets who keeps all that fancy military equipment running.

Granted. But a civilian resistance to the government (and why the hell do we think the government would be doing anything worthy of armed resistence?) would still not end terribly well.

Jormengand wrote:

Tule wrote:
No.

But it can hold up the driver of the oil truck that fuels both the tanks and the fighter planes.

Everybody forgets who keeps all that fancy military equipment running.

Granted. But a civilian resistance to the government (and why the hell do we think the government would be doing anything worthy of armed resistence?) would still not end terribly well.

For the government perhaps.

Even if the government could keep all its fighter planes in the air and its tanks running, only infantry can hold ground.

The entire US armed forces have only about 70.000 Infantrymen. There would probably be several hundred thousand, if not millions of American gun owners willing to fight those 70.000 infantrymen (assuming they all fight for the government in the first place), take pot shots at parked airplanes at military airfields and raid supply trucks.

Tule wrote:

Jormengand wrote:Granted. But a civilian resistance to the government (and why the hell do we think the government would be doing anything worthy of armed resistence?) would still not end terribly well.

For the government perhaps.

Even if the government could keep all its fighter planes in the air and its tanks running, only infantry can hold ground.

The entire US armed forces have only about 70.000 Infantrymen. There would probably be several hundred thousand, if not millions of American gun owners willing to fight those 70.000 infantrymen (assuming they all fight for the government in the first place), take pot shots at parked airplanes at military airfields and raid supply trucks.

Infantry hold ground, but tanks, planes and heavy artillery take ground. Like it or not, people would die by the hundreds with each shot of an artillery cannon. Even if you won, it wouldn't be much of a victory.

Again, why do we want to fight the government? Is Obama THAT bad?

Jormengand wrote:

Tule wrote:
For the government perhaps.

Even if the government could keep all its fighter planes in the air and its tanks running, only infantry can hold ground.

The entire US armed forces have only about 70.000 Infantrymen. There would probably be several hundred thousand, if not millions of American gun owners willing to fight those 70.000 infantrymen (assuming they all fight for the government in the first place), take pot shots at parked airplanes at military airfields and raid supply trucks.

Infantry hold ground, but tanks, planes and heavy artillery take ground. Like it or not, people would die by the hundreds with each shot of an artillery cannon. Even if you won, it wouldn't be much of a victory.

Again, why do we want to fight the government? Is Obama THAT bad?

Fighting the government with bullets is only appropriate when it's no longer possible to fight it with the ballot box and the soap box.