Second Amendment

[lewisnotmiller]

I know that this has been hashed and re-hashed but I guess it's time again (stupid stupid stupid to try though) to find out what ones definition of an "assault rifle" is. Something tells me this question is "stupid stupid stupid stupid". However we seem to have some new voices on the forum so let's let them put forth their opinions.
I'll be stupid and start

a firearm that looks scary.

*shrugs*

I guess you get enough stupid questions that your reaction is understandable, so I'll hold back on being insulted. My knowledge on weapons is not always bang up to date, because most of my knowledge comes from studying military history. In relation to post WW2 weapons, more specifically, it comes from studying terrorism, particularly of the Northern Irish variety, although I'm kinda a sucker for anything, tbh.

So no...I'm not pushing forth 'assault rifles' as a technically accurate description of a weapons class that could be used in law. However, taken as a colloquial term, I think you do get a pretty good understanding of what I am asking.

If you need a tighter definition, let's just go with mag-loaded weapons capable of selective fire, or capable of being easily converted to the same standard. They're an example anyway. Machine guns would be another example of a weapon I'd be interested in opinions on. As would shoulder-launched missiles.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It was somewhat facetiously saying that anything the government allows itself to maintain as weaponry should be allowed for the citizenry. As in, the people should be allowed anything that is acceptable under the geneva convention.

edit: The idea is not that I necessarily want tanks out on the roads or in backyards, but that for the most part people should be able to procure military grade equipment.

I totally disagree, but I get your point now, and at least I can understand why. Cheers. My question re: Stingers remains, but perhaps that means you're okay with citizens holding them?

 

[metis]

Getting a little sarcastic here aren't we. So turn about is fair play. No we like them because it drives anti-gun nuts crazy.
No, the reason people like them is because just like some people like art, music, wine,cars, food, etc. they enjoy shooting them, competing with them, and basically like a finely manufactured piece of hardware. So, I have little problem with your opinion just don't try and shove your opinion upon the rest of us.

What disingenuous nonsense. I am not "anti-gun"-- lie #1. Secondly, I'm not trying to "shove my opinion"-- lie #2. I have opinions, like you do esmith, and your bizarre attempt to silence me is counter to our American tradition.

 

[Mister Emu]

I totally disagree, but I get your point now, and at least I can understand why. Cheers. My question re: Stingers remains, but perhaps that means you're okay with citizens holding them?

Under strict licensing and permitting, yes.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Under strict licensing and permitting, yes.

So where does 'strict licensing and permitting' kick in for you?

Full disclosure, I'm not trying to argue whether guns and ownership are good or bad. I often find the debate devolves into a kind of pro/anti-gun tug of war. But half the time I don't even fully understand what the ideal picture of control/non-control is of the people doing the arguing.

 

[Mister Emu]

So where does 'strict licensing and permitting' kick in for you?

General small arms should be widely available, anything bigger would require the ability to demonstrate necessary proficiency and adequate storage facilities.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

General small arms should be widely available, anything bigger would require the ability to demonstrate necessary proficiency and adequate storage facilities.

Cool, thanks for the clarification.

 

[esmith]

Prior to me mentioning law enforcement, I mentioned studies, and I provided you with quotes and links with the latter. I provided you with scientific studies, and you supplied opinion pieces above. Not the same. The law enforcement statements I stated quite clearly came from having them in as speakers.

All you and some others are doing are playing silly little games. You have the full right to do so, but it involves you burrowing your heads in the sand to believe in what you want to believe.

As I stated before, I have not in any way supported a ban on all guns or for all or even most people, and I have stated that in some cases some people may be better off with a loaded gun in their house.

No you are the one playing games. Your statement " I stated quite clearly came from having them in as speakers. " is nothing but hearsay. You are the one arguing the point and use unsupported testimony. Answer this question:
Did you not state the following:

Law enforcement officials across the nation, including the FBI, have stated that in most cases it is not wise to keep a loaded gun in one's house

Yet you fail to substantiate your statement!

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed. But to the best of my understanding, there are limited demands on 'competence', and the size and nature of the collection can speak to intent. If I own 8 assault rifles, I'm not merely worried about a burglar, and I'm not a sports hunter. Perhaps I am a collector, perhaps I am a prepper, etc, but it does rule out some intents. (Obviously generalising)



Yeah. But they are dangerous. A collection of stamps is not an arsenal. A collection of assault rifles are. I'm surprised you would quibble with the word usage. It's accurate. I read a stupid amount of military history, so arsenal is just another word.

One man's "accurate" is another's mischievous spin.
Eight guns is an "arsenal"? Nah.
And the number of weapons doesn't determine intent.
It's the other way around.
Are guns dangerous?
Yer darn toot'n they are!
But then so are cars, trucks & law schools.
Especially the last one.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

One man's "accurate" is another's mischievous spin.

*shrugs*
Except that I'm not spinning anything. I think I've been easy enough to understand here, right?

Eight guns is an "arsenal"? Nah.

Arsenal : a collection of weapons and military equipment.

It's a weird argument you're making.

And the number of weapons doesn't determine intent.
It's the other way around.

I didn't say the number determines the intent, that's obviously not true. I argued that it can be indicative of intent, or at least rule out SOME intents in a general sense.
This hardly seems a controversial statement.

It's the other way around.
Are guns dangerous?
Yer darn toot'n they are!
But then so are cars, trucks & law schools.
Especially the last one.

Cars, trucks and law schools all have qualifying controls. Are car and truck quals ridiculously light? Sure, probably they are. But I still need to past a basic test of competency. Are you arguing that gun control should be beefed up then?

 

[Revoltingest]

*shrugs*
Except that I'm not spinning anything. I think I've been easy enough to understand here, right?



Arsenal : a collection of weapons and military equipment.

It's a weird argument you're making.



I didn't say the number determines the intent, that's obviously not true. I argued that it can be indicative of intent, or at least rule out SOME intents in a general sense.
This hardly seems a controversial statement.



Cars, trucks and law schools all have qualifying controls. Are car and truck quals ridiculously light? Sure, probably they are. But I still need to past a basic test of competency. Are you arguing that gun control should be beefed up then?

You keep bringing up "controls".
Just so you know, I've advocated some gun controls.
We'll have to agree to disagree about whether 8 guns is an "arsenal".
And civilian guns are typically not "military", eg, select fire (semi/full auto).
Who's weird now, bub!?
(Likely both of us.)

 

[esmith]

*shrugs*

I guess you get enough stupid questions that your reaction is understandable, so I'll hold back on being insulted. My knowledge on weapons is not always bang up to date, because most of my knowledge comes from studying military history. In relation to post WW2 weapons, more specifically, it comes from studying terrorism, particularly of the Northern Irish variety, although I'm kinda a sucker for anything, tbh.

So no...I'm not pushing forth 'assault rifles' as a technically accurate description of a weapons class that could be used in law. However, taken as a colloquial term, I think you do get a pretty good understanding of what I am asking.

If you need a tighter definition, let's just go with mag-loaded weapons capable of selective fire, or capable of being easily converted to the same standard. They're an example anyway. Machine guns would be another example of a weapon I'd be interested in opinions on. As would shoulder-launched missiles.

Get serious. You are stating: "mag-loaded weapons capable of selective fire, or capable of being easily converted to the same standard."
However, one must have a Class 3 license, to own automatic weapons. Check out last section about the "real cost" of owning an automatic weapon.

Oh by the way

from: http://thearmsguide.com/2349/full-auto-is-legal/

It is illegal to convert a semi-auto weapon to full auto under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. In addition it is illegal to manufacture an automatic weapon unless one obtains a license to manufacture NFA firearms and must also pay a special occupational tax as a class 3 dealer. That SOT tax is usually $1000 (there are special circumstances under which that tax is reduced to $500). Those with qualifying Federal Firearms Licenses who have that ATF approval can only sell the full auto firearms they manufacture to law enforcement or government entities.

So, have we covered the basics of who can own a "assault rifle". Guess we already have laws governing "assault rifles".
Now lets go deeper, from the same article:

The restriction of fully automatic firearms is regulated by the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. With the passage of FOPA, the United States Federal Government declared it illegal to make a new fully automatic firearm, convert a semi automatic firearm to fire in full auto, or to import a fully automatic firearm unless “transferred to the U.S. Government (USG) or a law enforcement agency, or to a Federal firearms licensee for use as a USG or law enforcement sales sample.” (27 CFR 479.105(d)). This means that any full auto firearm manufactured in the US or imported to the US before May 19, 1986 is legal for anyone who is willing to pay a one time $200 tax stamp (per firearm) to own a full auto or burst fire gun. However, due to the fixed supply of fully automatic firearms that currently exist in the US that are available for civilian purchase, the price for the qualifying full auto guns is outrageous. For example, I found a full auto MP-40 described as being in “85% condition” for sale on GunBroker.com for the starting price of $14,000. Although, depending on the firearm, it is not uncommon to find prices upwards of $20k.

So I guess if you have over $10,000 lying around and have a class 3 license you can purchase a "assault weapon" , but I seriously doubt this person is going to be your mass shooters. However, I may be wrong, maybe they'll go over the edge.

 

[Revoltingest]

Get serious. You are stating: "mag-loaded weapons capable of selective fire, or capable of being easily converted to the same standard."
However, one must have a Class 3 license, to own automatic weapons. Check out last section about the "real cost" of owning an automatic weapon.

Oh by the way

from: http://thearmsguide.com/2349/full-auto-is-legal/

So, have we covered the basics of who can own a "assault rifle". Guess we already have laws governing "assault rifles".
Now lets go deeper, from the same article:


So I guess if you have over $10,000 lying around and have a class 3 license you can purchase a "assault weapon" , but I seriously doubt this person is going to be your mass shooters. However, I may be wrong, maybe they'll go over the edge.

Tis interesting that Clinton's "assault weapon ban" didn't regulate a single actual assault weapon.
It covered only look-alikes & semi-auto handguns.
Much of it regulated appearance, eg, adding little thumb rests to handguns.
Other parts regulated manufacturing dates of guns & magazines.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Get serious. You are stating: "mag-loaded weapons capable of selective fire, or capable of being easily converted to the same standard."
However, one must have a Class 3 license, to own automatic weapons. Check out last section about the "real cost" of owning an automatic weapon.

Oh by the way

from: http://thearmsguide.com/2349/full-auto-is-legal/

So, have we covered the basics of who can own a "assault rifle". Guess we already have laws governing "assault rifles".
Now lets go deeper, from the same article:


So I guess if you have over $10,000 lying around and have a class 3 license you can purchase a "assault weapon" , but I seriously doubt this person is going to be your mass shooters. However, I may be wrong, maybe they'll go over the edge.

Touchy, touchy.
Just to rehash, the only question I asked was what opinions were held on a private citizen holding multiple assault rifles.
I don't remember saying or suggesting a damn thing about what laws were in place, should be in place, or even detailing my position.

 

[metis]

No you are the one playing games. Your statement " I stated quite clearly came from having them in as speakers. " is nothing but hearsay. You are the one arguing the point and use unsupported testimony. Answer this question:
Did you not state the following: Yet you fail to substantiate your statement!

First of all, did you remember any of the many gun by-back programs held by police departments in many locales? Secondly, when I have had the FBI in, and when they were talking about keeping loaded guns in the home, do you think these officers were just pulling just some opinion out of their own butts? Do you think for one minute that they didn't have access to the many scientific studies that have been done, just a couple of which I posted earlier?

"Hearsay", fine, but I have listened to them and other officers speak on this, plus I've read a fair numbers of scientific studies on this, and I'm going in their direction. If you wish to ignore them at the risk of even your own family, then I guess that's your choice. Had I made your choice mine, I'd have a dead son on my conscience.

So that you can enjoy your toy, you are at the same time putting your family at risk, and the stats bear that out.

Be careful.

fini

 

[Revoltingest]

First of all, did you remember any of the many gun by-back programs held by police departments in many locales? Secondly, when I have had the FBI in, and when they were talking about keeping loaded guns in the home, do you think these officers were just pulling just some opinion out of their own butts? Do you think for one minute that they didn't have access to the many scientific studies that have been done, just a couple of which I posted earlier?

"Hearsay", fine, but I have listened to them and other officers speak on this, plus I've read a fair numbers of scientific studies on this, and I'm going in their direction. If you wish to ignore them at the risk of even your own family, then I guess that's your choice. Had I made your choice mine, I'd have a dead son on my conscience.

So that you can enjoy your toy, you are at the same time putting your family at risk, and the stats bear that out.

Be careful.

fini

There's a problem with merely citing "scientific studies".
What they show is seldom what is inferred.
What are the populations, & what groups comprise the results?
Do these various groups differ from the results attributed to the aggregate?
Example:
If having a gun makes the home more dangerous, then cops shouldn't have their guns with them off duty.
I don't think this makes sense.

It reminds me of the old economist joke.
Economist #1 (Bob) shoots at a target, & hits 10' to the left of it.
Economist #2 (Jill) shoots, & hits 10' to the right of it.
They both exclaim, "On average, we hit the bullseye!".
Their conclusion masks what is really going on.

If one doesn't offer some cogent analysis, citing a study is much like quoting scripture.

 

[metis]

There's a problem with merely citing "scientific studies".
What they show is seldom what is inferred.
What are the populations, & what groups comprise the results?
Do these various groups differ from the results attributed to the aggregate?
Example:
If having a gun makes the home more dangerous, then cops shouldn't have their guns with them off duty.
I don't think this makes sense.

It reminds me of the old economist joke.
Economist #1 (Bob) shoots at a target, & hits 10' to the left of it.
Economist #2 (Jill) shoots, & hits 10' to the right of it.
They both exclaim, "On average, we hit the bullseye!".
Their conclusion masks what is really going on.

If one doesn't offer some cogent analysis, citing a study is much like quoting scripture.

I dealt with this before in a couple of posts, so you might check back and see what I actually posted. I did not take, nor do I believe in the "one size fits all" approach.

 

[Revoltingest]

I dealt with this before in a couple of posts, so you might check back and see what I actually posted. I did not take, nor do I believe in the "one size fits all" approach.

I've dealt with it too, & find that having a gun in my home poses less risk than being unarmed.
This is based upon using studies by both pro & anti gun types.
But for people who are untrained with poor storage means, it might be better to be unarmed.

Btw, if you tell someone you don't know that they're putting their family at risk by owning guns,
then you are indeed taking a "one size fits all" approach.

 

[Skwim]

Somebody likes things I don't like?! Insult them!

Sorry you don't like penises. No insult intended.

Is there any particular reason why you are only capable of talking about penises when guns come up?

Is there any particular reason why you are only capable of hyperbole?

As for talking about penises when guns come up, it's like the association between boobs and bras. Mention the word "bra" and one's mind intuitively springs to the object of its purpose.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry you don't like penises. No insult intended.



Is there any particular reason why you are only capable of hyperbole?

As for talking about penises when guns come up, it's like the association between boobs and bras. Mention the word "bra" and one's mind intuitively springs to the object of its purpose.

It's a predilection of the anti-gun crowd.....linking penises with guns.
Odd.
Is there a presumption that only males like guns?