Biden announces proposed gun control measures

[lyle_destroys]

Hitler took power in basically under a decade. Which means, the last time Reagan helped install an AR ban, Hitler wouldve had enough time to take power and start gas chambers before the ban was lifted.

Obviously that's not what happened. I would argue nothing "Tyrannical" happened during that time.

Do you believe all background checks should be removed and the public should be given full and unfettered access to fully auto machine guns?

As stated earlier, tyranny is an eventual outcome of infringements, and infringements happened all through this time, and are still happening. It's both parties also, trump included.
And yes, background checks only slow down people who are lawfully buying a firearm. Lawbreakers break laws, including this. Believe it or not but the constitution also protects things like machine guns, artillery and other weapons of war. "Letters of marque" is a governmental permission for a citizen to use privately owned warships against a domestic enemy in a time of war. This includes cannons and accoutrements.
It may seem ridiculous to you now but it's only because you have been conditioned to believe this by current policy.

 

[brocksw]

As stated earlier, tyranny is an eventual outcome of infringements, and infringements happened all through this time, and are still happening. It's both parties also, trump included.
And yes, background checks only slow down people who are lawfully buying a firearm. Lawbreakers break laws, including this. Believe it or not but the constitution also protects things like machine guns, artillery and other weapons of war. "Letters of marque" is a governmental permission for a citizen to use privately owned warships against a domestic enemy in a time of war. This includes cannons and accoutrements.
It may seem ridiculous to you now but it's only because you have been conditioned to believe this by current policy.

So sooner or later Australia...with no guns will succomb to tyranny because of this firearms infringement?

 

[IdahoElk]

These threads are a great litmus test to bring out our resident liberals.

 

[lyle_destroys]

Just remember what can be done with fertilizer or airplanes.

Per your question, yes I do think the suppressor situation is silly. Really silly.

But saying that the red tape already exists isn´t the same as saying that you´re in favor of it, or that you don´t consider it infringement.

For heavy machine guns, missiles, etc. does the paperwork constitute infringement? And if so is it reasonable given what we´re talking about?

I personally feel that suppressors shouldn´t require any more red tape than a firearm purchase. I feel very differently regarding things like heavy machine guns, RPGs, etc.

 

[Newtosavage]

These threads are a great litmus test to bring out our resident liberals.

And conspiracy theorists.

 

[ozyclint]

A person´s absolute risk of dying a firearm related death in the US in 12.21/100000. A small fraction of a percent.

Interestingly enough, the per capita death rate of vehicle accidents is 12.4/100000. Just a smidge higher.

With figures that high I say shut down the entire world immediately!

 

[MattB]

The people I personally know who are in favor of restrictions on ¨assault rifles¨ are not making an attempt to chip away at the 2A bit by bit in an outright effort to infringe upon anyone´s rights or to make it easier to eventually oppress their political opponents. They are essentially suggesting that the social costs of ARs being legal outweigh the risks of placing restrictions on the 2A.

But they are making a thinly veiled attempt to chip away at 2A rights, whether they know it or not. AR's and "assault weapons" are used in a shockingly low % of gun homicides in the US. Despite that, the average person who is in favor of "common sense" restrictions on 2A rights focuses on that type of weapon due to imbalanced reporting and outright sensationalism by our media.

It's similar to the overall perspective on the US violent crime rate. When I ask people who are popular media-educated whether they believe it has a) gone up, b) stayed the same, or c) reduced as compared to 1995, almost none believes it has reduced. The fact of the matter is violent crime in the US is down ~40% over that timeframe.

I would reiterate that the 2A is a Constitutional right. Until such time as it isn't, I don't believe the onus is on gun owners to justify owning a firearm of a particular type. They onus is on the opposition to justify why not - and that burden (based on the SCOTUS's most recent view) is high.

 

[lyle_destroys]

So sooner or later Australia...with no guns will succomb to tyranny because of this firearms infringement?

Possibly, heck if I know. It's always more likely when there is a great divide between people due to religion, ethnicities, political ideals, ect. I don't know enough about australia to know if any of these are an issue.

 

[Hoodie]

Just remember what can be done with fertilizer or airplanes.

No doubt about that. I´d also argue that a tube fed 44 lever gun doesn´t lag too far behind an AR in the right hands. A lot of this comes down to popular perception, which is frequently uneducated at best.

 

[Billinsd]

After ARs are gone they will come after semi automatics then pumps. I don't remember, which countries restrict or ban pumps?

 

[Billinsd]

So sooner or later Australia...with no guns will succomb to tyranny because of this firearms infringement?

All tototalitarian governments banned guns, not all governments that banned guns are totalitarian. If guns are banned you are more at the mercy of government.

 

[Hoodie]

But they are making a thinly veiled attempt to chip away at 2A rights, whether they know it or not. AR's and "assault weapons" are used in a shockingly low % of gun homicides in the US. Despite that, the average person who is in favor of "common sense" restrictions on 2A rights focuses on that type of weapon due to imbalanced reporting and outright sensationalism by our media.

It's similar to the overall perspective on the US violent crime rate. When I ask people who are popular media-educated whether they believe it has a) gone up, b) stayed the same, or c) reduced as compared to 1995, almost none believes it has reduced. The fact of the matter is violent crime in the US is down ~40% over that timeframe.

I would reiterate that the 2A is a Constitutional right. Until such time as it isn't, I don't believe the onus is on gun owners to justify owning a firearm of a particular type. They onus is on them to justify why not - and that burden (based on the SCOTUS's most recent view) is high.

Totally agree on the media point.

I was more so saying that making a rational argument backed by data and statistics seems to go further than pointing out that the 2nd exists and implying that´s the end of the discussion. If I can back my position with hard facts I prefer to do so. This is an instance (as you pointed out) where popular perception and the data don´t necessarily jive. The numbers to make the point are there, so I might as well use them.

I don´t necessarily think it´s helpful to shut the conversation down, which is basically what I´d be doing if I just boiled down my stance to ¨Yeah, but the 2A.¨

On a somewhat related note, I think it´s really stupid that high school kids have to pass algebra but basic statistics isn´t a requirement. Data literacy is important. It´s really easy to manipulate stats to make a point and politicians on both sides of the aisle do it all the time.

Evaluating media bias is another. I´ve got a friend with a Bachelorś in PolySci who was legitimately surprised when I told him I thought that it was irresponsible that Don Lemon´s coverage on CNN wasn´t overtly labelled as opinion. He just never considered that it wasn´t the default view. I know other people who feel basically the same about Fox. I see that as a big problem.

 

[ozyclint]

I'm in Australia. self defense is NOT a legal reason to own a firearm here. IMO the 2A you have in the USA is a good thing. You're founding fathers knew what they were doing. They just shook off the chains of tyranny and they didn't want their own government to become the same.
They wanted the citizens to have guns as protection from THEM!

 

[FLAK]

I will carry on as usual. As I see fit.
I will exercise my 2A where ever I decide.
I dont need a permit, or permission from the Govt.
It's a God Given right, the 2A merely re-emphasizes
that right.
And I dont give .02 what anybody thinks.

 

[ButterBean]

I will carry on as usual. As I see fit.
I will exercise my 2A where ever I decide.
I dont need a permit, or permission from the Govt.
It's a God Given right, the 2A merely re-emphasizes
that right.
And I dont give .02 what anybody thinks.

X-2

 

[brocksw]

All tototalitarian governments banned guns, not all governments that banned guns are totalitarian. If guns are banned you are more at the mercy of government.

That is not quite my understanding. For instance, before Hitler, right after WWI, Germany banned all possession of firearms. This was because of the Treaty of Versaille which was an allied powers sort of thing.

In 1928, laws relaxed and it was in effect, similar to a gun registration that required permits for buying/selling, carrying, manufacturing, etc. I think even when the Nazi's were in power they, lowered the legal age to buy guns from 20 to 18. I think there were some other relaxations that took place in both time frames. The Nazi's took guns from the Jews and then murdered them. They didn't take guns from everyone. German Weapons Act of 1938 expanded access to guns for most Germans but banned jews and enemies of the state from obtaining weapons.

Also, don't forget Nazis murdered hundreds of prominent Social Democrats, unionists, communists, liberals, marxists etc. in the years before 1933. Some were undoubtedly armed.

Dictators, whether left or right, get to power because of their cultish following. For hitler is was the protocols of the elders of zion or the Judaeo-Bolshevik conspiracy. The Nazi Party, under hitler was able to use conspiracy theory to convince his fellow Germans that the Jews were taking over the world more or less and that Jewish power was corrupt and it would lead to the destruction of the German state as they knew it.

It has so many similarities to right wing extremist rhetoric about liberals today it's almost scary. Liberals, don't do themselves any favors. They (generalizing here) run around asking for marxism like they have some sort of idea what they're asking for. They don't. Every time it's tried, people die. Lots of people die.

 

[5MilesBack]

You could make the argument that a well regulated militia includes a vetting process and training. And the subsequent ability to purchase a brand new M240B for you private collection because it is “part of ordinary military equipment” (Miller v US 1939)....

And this would be fine.........that does NOT violate the 2A.

 

[brocksw]

....He just never considered that it wasn´t the default view. I know other people who feel basically the same about Fox. I see that as a big problem.

I am convinced that the downfall of this country, if it happens, won't be because of some infringement on 2a, probably not even 4a or 1a. But it will be the American people and their biases, pitting themselves against each other inspite of themselves. Heads in the sand with an arm up pointing the finger at the other side. Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini...a fundamental belief that the other side, the side that looked different, believed in something different, talked different, held a different opinion about something, that they were the enemy and they needed to be enslaved, eliminated, controlled, overthrown, etc. The 2a might be the vessel but that seems beside the point. Neither side really ever taking the time to understand the other.

 

[5MilesBack]

I say this smiling and half laughing....but I'm just not sure if I want some people I've met to own grenades and RPGs, much less tanks and surface to air missiles. Shit I just met a guy in line at the post office the other day who def should not have had access to a grenade at the particular moment in time. He was entirely to upset about waiting in line.

That may be, and I could say the same thing about cars and be equally correct in our concern for our own, or the safety of others. But that doesn't mean that the government has the constitutional right to violate the 2A. The Constitution is the foundation and basis for all decision making by our government officials. It tells them what they can and can't do, yet they still ignore it.........hence the need for the SCOTUS. However, even the SCOTUS has been ignoring the foundation of the Constitution. Just because some people fear certain guns, or what those guns can be illegally used for, is never a good reason to violate the Constitution.

 

[BjornF16]

Per your question, yes I do think the suppressor situation is silly. Really silly.

But saying that the red tape already exists isn´t the same as saying that you´re in favor of it, or that you don´t consider it infringement.

For heavy machine guns, missiles, etc. does the paperwork constitute infringement? And if so is it reasonable given what we´re talking about?

I personally feel that suppressors shouldn´t require any more red tape than a firearm purchase. I feel very differently regarding things like heavy machine guns, RPGs, etc.

Other than Miller, I don’t think a challenge to NFA has been made (especially concerning suppressors and mg)... or if it has, it wasn’t accepted by SCOTUS.