Semiautomatic rifles to be Assault Weapons in CA

[Imperializt Russia]

Isn't it more sporting to not fuck people further of there rights?

If I said you had the right to play golf and that right would not be infringed and I let you played. Then one day I came to you and said that you could now only play 3 holes instead of 18 would you not think that your right is now being infringed?

Alleged rights.

Sure... What's the point of comparing hunting to golf?

It's a sport and a pasttime.
They're directly comparable.

[The Rich Port]

Alleged rights.

Sure... What's the point of comparing hunting to golf?

It's a sport and a pasttime.
They're directly comparable.

I didn't realize people golfed for subsistence.

[Nazeroth]

It's a sport and a pasttime.
They're directly comparable.

I didn't realize people golfed for subsistence.

good thing the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting nor is hunting even implied in any form.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's a sport and a pasttime.
They're directly comparable.

I didn't realize people golfed for subsistence.

I don't recall having said that.

[Downeistan]

I recognize that people can make firearms and can retrofit semiautomatics to make them automatics, etc. (which is a strong argument for banning some of these weapons in my opinion); however, my objection is to the unsubstantiated claim that:

"Fire arms are fairly easy to make, most certainly easier than meth or LSD, and once you account for the vast fields of pot you need I would say making a fire arm is easier than pot."

There is a certain segment of the population that is particularly agriculturally, chemically, or mechanically inclined, but the vast majority of people would have difficulties doing these things. Hence they buy pot, meth, semiautomatics. The criminality of those drugs has not suddenly shifted everyone to become home chemists, just as gun enthusiasts won't all buy drill presses and chop saws.

[The Rich Port]

I didn't realize people golfed for subsistence.

good thing the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting nor is hunting even implied in any form.

Neither is the right to keep guns for revolution.

It was to establish militias in times of invasion.

[Norstal]

... Economically disastrous?

... People still hunt as a form of subsistence or something?

fucking ruining hunters lives that's for sure

Use bows. Like real hunters.

[Zavea]

It's a sport and a pasttime.
They're directly comparable.

I didn't realize people golfed for subsistence.

the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a mulligan is a good guy with a hole-in-one

[The Rich Port]

I didn't realize people golfed for subsistence.

I don't recall having said that.

It's a flaw in the analogy.

People don't golf for subsistence, but they do hunt for subsistence.

[Imperializt Russia]

The majority of hunters hunt for fun, like golfists golf for fun.

good thing the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting nor is hunting even implied in any form.

Neither is the right to keep guns for revolution.

It was to establish militias in times of invasion.

The text states "being necessary to the security of a free State"
This presumably covers revolting against the non-free tyrant state, referenced lovingly by some of the founding fathers.

[Downeistan]

I didn't realize people golfed for subsistence.

I don't recall having said that.

250 years ago they played golf with one wooden club, without golf carts, without Titleist ProV balls and they wore really funny pants. So from an evolutionary standpoint yeah they're pretty comparable, except that over time the rules of golf have changed along with the technology.

[The Rich Port]

Neither is the right to keep guns for revolution.

It was to establish militias in times of invasion.

The text states "being necessary to the security of a free State"
This presumably covers revolting against the non-free tyrant state, referenced lovingly by some of the founding fathers.

As in, occupied by a foreign power.

Is it a common practice of a foreign power to set up fair and independent democracies after they take over?

[Imperializt Russia]

The text states "being necessary to the security of a free State"
This presumably covers revolting against the non-free tyrant state, referenced lovingly by some of the founding fathers.

As in, occupied by a foreign power.

It does not state that.

Consider it shortsighted if you want.

[The Rich Port]

As in, occupied by a foreign power.

It does not state that.

Consider it shortsighted if you want.

In some ways, extremely short-sighted. In others, extremely long-sighted.

When the FFs drafted the Constitution, they did so under enormous pressure from both Federalist and anti-Federalist camps, from their own consciousness and from outside groups.

They drafted the Constitution to both get it out of the way as quickly as possible without ruffling any feathers (hence it's incredibly nebulous language) and to be clarified at a later date.

Up until 2008, the SCOTUS upheld the right of the government to regulate firearms because the Constitution said nowhere that it's citizens had a right to arm themselves except to form a militia to protect themselves from oppression.

[Nazeroth]

you know what else I love, people who want gun control(like politicians) but have armed security with them.

I wish I could have the luxury of sitting back and spouting how bad guns are while having armed staff surrounding me.

[The Rich Port]

you know what else I love, people who want gun control(like politicians) but have armed security with them.

I wish I could have the luxury of sitting back and spouting how bad guns are while having armed staff surrounding me.

... Why would you want armed guards around you?

Are you possibly being targeted for assassination because of your high public status?

[Nazeroth]

you know what else I love, people who want gun control(like politicians) but have armed security with them.

I wish I could have the luxury of sitting back and spouting how bad guns are while having armed staff surrounding me.

... Why would you want armed guards around you?

Are you possibly being targeted for assassination because of your high public status?

please, the threats politicians face are the same as your average joe, small arms.

[Downeistan]

... Why would you want armed guards around you?

Are you possibly being targeted for assassination because of your high public status?

please, the threats politicians face are the same as your average joe, small arms.

Yeah like that hypocrite James Brady. Right alongside the Secret Service, he had all the guns helping defend him and just because he gets shot in the head he thinks he can argue for gun control -- after the fact no less. Where was he before he got shot in the head while being surrounded by the world's best bodyguards? Oh the hypocrisy.

[Nazeroth]

please, the threats politicians face are the same as your average joe, small arms.

Yeah like that hypocrite James Brady. Right alongside the Secret Service, he had all the guns helping defend him and just because he gets shot in the head he thinks he can argue for gun control -- after the fact no less. Where was he before he got shot in the head while being surrounded by the world's best bodyguards? Oh the hypocrisy.

So the average citizen isn't entitled to security but a politician is?

sounds shitty to me.

[Downeistan]

Yeah like that hypocrite James Brady. Right alongside the Secret Service, he had all the guns helping defend him and just because he gets shot in the head he thinks he can argue for gun control -- after the fact no less. Where was he before he got shot in the head while being surrounded by the world's best bodyguards? Oh the hypocrisy.

So the average citizen isn't entitled to security but a politician is?

sounds shitty to me.

Your argument was that it's hypocritical of politicians to ask for gun control because they are protected. It was rebutted by showing that they are more frequently assassination targets. Then you moved the goalposts and discussed small arms. So back to your original point about having body guards, seems like politicians have a reasonable motive for not only wanting protection, but for also limiting what is shot at them.

[Nazeroth]

So the average citizen isn't entitled to security but a politician is?

sounds shitty to me.

Your argument was that it's hypocritical of politicians to ask for gun control because they are protected. It was rebutted by showing that they are more frequently assassination targets. Then you moved the goalposts and discussed small arms. So back to your original point about having body guards, seems like politicians have a reasonable motive for not only wanting protection, but for also limiting what is shot at them.

political assasinations are far more rarer than citizens being killed. How many US politicians have been assassinated in the past 10 years?

of course it helps that they have there cozy armed security detail, that tends to put would-be killers off a bit...cause you know...they have guns...

[Downeistan]

Your argument was that it's hypocritical of politicians to ask for gun control because they are protected. It was rebutted by showing that they are more frequently assassination targets. Then you moved the goalposts and discussed small arms. So back to your original point about having body guards, seems like politicians have a reasonable motive for not only wanting protection, but for also limiting what is shot at them.

political assasinations are far more rarer than citizens being killed. How many US politicians have been assassinated in the past 10 years?

You think that maybe a rate stat might be more useful than a counting stat? And again, regardless, you were trying to make a pithy point about politicians' hypocrisy. Your point was short-sighted.

[Nazeroth]

political assasinations are far more rarer than citizens being killed. How many US politicians have been assassinated in the past 10 years?

You think that maybe a rate stat might be more useful than a counting stat? And again, regardless, you were trying to make a pithy point about politicians' hypocrisy. Your point was short-sighted.

it's really simple actually, when you have guns around you, you are safter from attack

regardless if it's on your person or you have a few dudes armed for you, your still under protection from firearms thus preventing would be attackers.

It's called presence of deadly force. We military police also have this.

[Spirit of Hope]

I have to say I hate my home state of California for so many reasons...
Also I think this could get struck down as unconstitutional given McDonald vs. Chicago. But I'm not a constitutional lawyer so I'm not sure.

[Sevvania]

I recognize that people can make firearms and can retrofit semiautomatics to make them automatics, etc. (which is a strong argument for banning some of these weapons in my opinion)

Modifying a semi-automatic weapon into a fully-automatic is not an easy task. From the Wikipedia page on the AR-15:

"Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. This was done to satisfy United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to full-automatic. In the late 1970s and early '80s, items such as the "Drop In Auto Sear" or "lightning-link," conversion to full automatic was very straightforward (sometimes requiring machining of the lower receiver with use of a lathe and M16 Bolt Carrier Group). Such modifications, unless using registered and transferable parts made prior to May 19, 1986, are illegal. (The Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 has redefined a machine gun to include individual components where a semi-automatic firearm can be converted to full-automatic based on a 1981 ATF ruling on machine gun parts.) Since 1993, The Bolt Carrier Groups used in AR-15 type rifles for civilians have employed additional measures to prevent modification to full auto. Colt AR-15's use a metal alloy wall separating the Fire Control group from the Sear, preventing use of such items."

In short, if a semi-automatic weapon can be easily converted for fully-automatic fire, it is legally considered a machine gun. Furthermore, there have only been two confirmed homicides committed with legally owned fully-automatic weapons. One of these was committed by a police officer.

In addition to the above information only four police officers have been killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.) In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic. A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.
Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Tl;dr: Of the >4% of gun crimes involving rifles, the percentage of gun crimes committed with semi-automatic rifles is even smaller, and the percentage of gun crimes commited with fully-automatic rifles is smaller still.