What's new
By:

At least the guns are okay

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
The Thriller said:
I’m going to push back on this. There were more gun restrictions 30 years ago than today. Constitutional carry wasn’t a thing and there were other regulations and bans still on the books (Brady, Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, etc). I’m here for solutions too. Let’s ban certain types of weapons and institute buybacks. Right now I want the AR15 banned and buybacks to go into effect. Let’s see what happens after 15 years. Let’s give it a try
Click to expand...
Okay so the AR-15 gets banned and suddenly there is a BR-151S.

What is it about the AR-15 that you are going to use to distinguish what is banned? I've posted some of my ideas below but I'd be interested to hear yours before you read mine. Banning a model designation is meaningless.

I'd have respect for a "we need to ban ALL semi-automatic magazine fed rifles" because at least that would mean something. Not "let's ban high capacity magazines" without saying exactly what you mean. 10 rounds max? You haven't solved anything. Ban pistol grip stocks on rifles? You haven't solved anything. Ban rifles with scary looking features? you haven't solved anything.

I'd be in favor of defining a rifle as either a bolt-action that can be fed by a detachable magazine or a semi-auto that can only have a 5 round max internal (non-detachable) magazine. If it doesn't meet that criteria then it isn't a standard rifle and must be licensed as a specialty rifle. I'd be for retroactive rules that meant that existing guns that fall out of the rifle classification need to be specially licensed, which would include a gun-safety and competency test (demonstrate safe use of each gun to be licensed and pass a written test), an extended background check that might include contacting people who know you, a spousal endorsement (your spouse would have to sign-off on each "specialty-rifle" in the household), proof of safe storage capability (receipt and pictures of a gun safe, for instance), and finally an interview by an independent psychologist. For the initial license it might cost close to or maybe more than $1000. For additional guns it might be closer to $100 or so for each one. Yearly renewal would be $400-$600. There should also be insurance requirements that represent the additional risk a household with a gun causes.
 
Last edited:
Oh and to actually do anything meaningful we need a constitutional amendment. It isn't going to happen today but the gun control advocating people need to be honest and put it on the table NOW.
 
Gameface said:
Bullying happens in a lot of places and a lot of different times. Weapons and ammo were just as available in the U.S. 30 years ago, or 50 years ago.

I'm in favor of solutions. I'm not in favor of an "assault weapon ban" because that doesn't actually mean anything. What is being banned? Flash suppressors? Bullpup foregrips? Accessory rails?

Why don't people take a technical approach to the problem instead of using meaningless buzzwords and LOUDLY talking about **** they don't actually know anything about? That would be a welcome first step.

I'm here for solutions, not ********.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about an assault weapon ban?

Who’s using buzzwords?

Sure, I’m open to banning many different types of guns. The 2nd amendment didn’t guarantee that any yahoo in this country could own an armory. Even conservative justices a few years ago (pre roberts clown show) agreed on that.
 
Gameface said:
Oh and to actually do anything meaningful we need a constitutional amendment. It isn't going to happen today but the gun control advocating people need to be honest and put it on the table NOW.
Click to expand...
Why? Guns have been regulated before without a constitutional amendment.
 
Gameface said:
Okay so the AR-15 gets banned and suddenly there is a BR-151S.

What is it about the AR-15 that you are going to use to distinguish what is banned? I've posted some of my ideas below but I'd be interested to hear yours before you read mine. Banning a model designation is meaningless.

I'd have respect for a "we need to ban ALL semi-automatic magazine fed rifles" because at least that would mean something. Not "let's ban high capacity magazines" without saying exactly what you mean. 10 rounds max? You haven't solved anything. Ban pistol grip stocks on rifles? You haven't solved anything. Ban rifles with scary looking features? you haven't solved anything.

I'd be in favor of defining a rifle as either a bolt-action that can be fed by a detachable magazine or a semi-auto that can only have a 5 round max internal (non-detachable) magazine. If it doesn't meet that criteria then it isn't a standard rifle and must be licensed as a specialty rifle. I'd be for retroactive rules that meant that existing guns that fall out of the rifle classification need to be specially licensed, which would include a gun-safety and competency test (demonstrate safe use of each gun to be licensed and pass a written test), an extended background check that might include contacting people who know you, a spousal endorsement (your spouse would have to sign-off on each "specialty-rifle" in the household), proof of safe storage capability (receipt and pictures of a gun safe, for instance), and finally an interview by an independent psychologist. For the initial license it might cost close to or maybe more than $1000. For additional guns it might be closer to $100 or so for each one. Yearly renewal would be $400-$600. There should also be insurance requirements that represent the additional risk a household with a gun causes.
Click to expand...
Okay. So let’s do this. Good suggestions. Thanks. Not much I disagree with at all.

All I want is for this country to treat guns with just half as much seriousness as they’ve treated the great child killers of our time, “This book is gay”, pride flags, books about Rosa Parks, Tik Tok, and David’s junk. If we do this, we’ll be on our way to climbing ourselves out of the abyss.
 
Gameface said:
I'm in favor of solutions. I'm not in favor of an "assault weapon ban" because that doesn't actually mean anything. What is being banned? Flash suppressors? Bullpup foregrips? Accessory rails?

Why don't people take a technical approach to the problem instead of using meaningless buzzwords and LOUDLY talking about **** they don't actually know anything about? That would be a welcome first step.
Click to expand...
What was banned under the prior assault weapons ban? Nothing?
 
Gameface said:
I'd have respect for a "we need to ban ALL semi-automatic magazine fed rifles" because at least that would mean something. Not "let's ban high capacity magazines" without saying exactly what you mean. 10 rounds max? You haven't solved anything. Ban pistol grip stocks on rifles? You haven't solved anything. Ban rifles with scary looking features? you haven't solved anything.
Click to expand...
Do all mass shooters understand guns as well as you do? My impression is that many (perhaps not most) but the guns that look scary, because intimidation is part of the purpose.
 
One Brow said:
What was banned under the prior assault weapons ban? Nothing?
Click to expand...
Instead of going off my memory I'm going to find a link, but it was primarily aesthetic features like flash suppressors and collapsible stocks.

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the definition of "semi-automatic assault weapon" ("SAW") (commonly shortened to "assault weapon") included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[19]


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
  • A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine.
The law also categorically banned the following makes and models of semi-automatic firearms and any copies or duplicates of them, in any caliber:

Name of firearmPreban federal legal status
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models)Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and GalilImports banned in 1989*
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70)Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNCImports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12Legal
Steyr AUGImports banned in 1989*
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22Legal
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12Legal
 
Gameface said:
Instead of going off my memory I'm going to find a link, but it was primarily aesthetic features like flash suppressors and collapsible stocks.

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the definition of "semi-automatic assault weapon" ("SAW") (commonly shortened to "assault weapon") included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[19]


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
  • A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine.
The law also categorically banned the following makes and models of semi-automatic firearms and any copies or duplicates of them, in any caliber:

Name of firearmPreban federal legal status
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models)Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and GalilImports banned in 1989*
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70)Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNCImports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12Legal
Steyr AUGImports banned in 1989*
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22Legal
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12Legal
Click to expand...
Interesting this was a 1994 ban, yet a tec-9 was used at Columbine 6 years later. And some version of an AR-15 style gun was used at damn near every mass shooting since. It is almost as if bad guys will get bad guns regardless of their legality status. Nah, can't be that. Must be some other explanation.

This ban is all but meaningless in terms of weapons used in mass shootings. Guns can be modified by the user almost endlessly. When I was in high school a couple of friends and me modified a remington semi-auto 22 LR rifle to fire full auto. It jammed like crazy but when it worked it unloaded the clip fast. It was a tube feed and held like 15 rounds or something. We got it to unload the entire thing in a few seconds. Not hard to add stuff or modify stuff or whatever to do what most of this is trying to stop. And frankly, looking at the guns the person used in the Christian school shootings a couple look to have been modified accordingly.

The bigger problem to me is that both sides look at all or nothing solutions for the most part. The right wants all the guns, the left wants none of the guns, and neither side is trying to find middle ground to build on to actually get us somewhere. In the battle for the Next Great Soundbite (NGSB™) they just spout "NO MORE GUNS", or "EVEN MORE GUNS" and never really discuss anything else (remember it is about getting re-elected, none of these people give a flying **** about any plebes that might get shot, they just use these opportunities to rile up their base and make it through the next election cycle to continue to line their pockets and build their power). It is a meaningless fight with no real outcome in sight. Really I think we are more likely to see a dramatic increase in armed officers of some kind stationed at vulnerable locations, like schools and churches, before we see meaningful gun regulations that actually have an impact on restricting ownership for high-risk individuals.
 
Disagreed on the 'bad guys get guns' bit above. These folks don't have non-legal methods to acquire these weapons (for the most part), they're not hardened gangsters, they're people that have snapped.

Question for the pro-2A folks - What's a scenario in the modern US where one could realistically need a semi automatic weapon?

I can see some fringe scenarios for folks in rural Alaska and similar where they still have real mega fauna and it feels like a bit of a stretch, but I guess. What else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top