Support NeoGAF

[LlamaJohnson]

Like I said before, I don't understand why somebody needs a 15+ round magazine. I've been in the military/law enforcement for 18 years, and that's the only place I think they're necessary. A big part of it stems from the argument of "well if he has a 30 round mag, I need one to protect myself from him" and so on. It's American gun culture.

 

[Pandy]

This thread is a good explanation for why all semi-auto guns should be banned. No more confusion over semantics while still being the correct course of action.

Been debating what to reply to the OP, since he obviously set this up in responce to the earlier gun control thread, but this about sums it up.

 

[Piggus]

GAF does?

Havent seen anything in OP that makes any reasonable argument to be against gun reform. Its still the same argument, we cant ban semi's or pistols because 2nd Amendment and as we know Amendmen, even by definition means unchangable.....

There are numerous posters here who support something like the Assault Weapons ban without actually knowing anything about it or the fact that it was virtually ineffective the first time around. These are people who are unintentionally helping to create MASSIVE spikes in sales of ammo and "assault weapons" until the bill is ultimately killed by congress. Anybody who supports feel-good gun legislation that spooks people into buying more guns is, ironically, doing gun owners a huge favor.

 

[Night Angel]

Been debating what to reply to the OP, since he obviously set this up in responce to the earlier gun control thread, but this about sums it up.

And as he's started numerous times, calling for an outright ban of semi-auto weapons is an impossibility because of how amendments work. It would be more useful to fight for better regulations in the registration process.

I'm a strong supporter of gun ownership, but I 100% agree that we need better background checks and licensing.

 

[Piggus]

I don't like how gun advocates often describe assault weapons as just "looking" like assault rifles. For the most part, these aren't cosmetic (or as you describe, "aesthetic") differences, they're ergonomic differences. That collapsible/retracting stock is designed for greater maneuverability in tight quarters while still allowing steady firing for longer distances -- it's not merely a fashion accessory. The pistol grip allows the rifle to be overall shorter and easier to maneuver in tight spaces (say, inside buildings). The detachable mag allows for quicker reloading.

It's not a coincidence that assault rifles often have these same design features and the advantages they bring don't vanish just because the gun can only fire in semi auto -- in fact, trained soldiers/officers using fully automatic assault rifles will use semi auto fire most of the time anyway (contrary to how they're depicted in movies/video games).

edit: This is a perfectly legal civilian weapon (semi auto ar-15):

I also think it's worth pointing out that semi-auto rifles can still fire quite fast: https://youtu.be/TuNSB9jkpyQ?t=1m32s

Using Jerry Miculek as an example is pretty silly considering he's been competing his entire life and is one of the fastest shooters in the world. Even experienced shooters can't shoot anywhere near as fast as he can and stay on target. A better example is bumpfire stock, which allows you to fire at or near the weapon's maximum rate of fire and still be somewhat accurate. But in order for them to be illegal, the ATF would need to redefine "semi-automatic" entirely.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Using Jerry Miculek as an example is pretty silly considering he's been competing his entire life and is one of the fastest shooters in the world. Even experienced shooters can't shoot anywhere near as fast as he can and stay on target. A better example is bumpfire stock, which allows you to fire at or near the weapon's maximum rate of fire and still be somewhat accurate. But in order for them to be illegal, the ATF would need to redefine "semi-automatic" entirely.

I think it's perfectly fine to use him as an example when you're only talking about how quickly a semi-auto can be fired. It's not like accuracy or picking out individual targets is a concern for an individual who is just looking to just maximize bullets going into warm bodies by firing into a crowd. So I actually wouldn't be surprised if someone could fire faster than Miculek in that video, since he's spending fractions of seconds on his accuracy.

 

[Piggus]

I think it's perfectly fine to use him as an example when you're only talking about how quickly a semi-auto can be fired. It's not like accuracy or picking out individual targets is a concern for an individual who is just looking to just maximize bullets going into warm bodies by firing into a crowd. So I actually wouldn't be surprised if someone could fire faster than Miculek in that video, since he's spending fractions of seconds on his accuracy.

True. Internally yes, a semi auto can fire just as fast as the full-auto variant if you can pull the trigger that quickly, mainly because there's nothing that actually slows down the action. My AK-47 for example has a Fostech bumpfire stock on it, and I can fire just as fast as the full-auto. Any faster and I'd outrun the bolt carrier. It is effectively full-auto. But if the ATF says I can own it, then fine with me lol. Not of a lot of people have the opportunity to fire (let alone own) something like that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_SWefYWKw0

I am truly amazed that the media hasn't jumped all over these.

 

[PushTheButtonMax]

I want everyone to have a one shot manual reload hunting rifle.

You can reload your damn gun after shooting at bambi once. If you need two bullets and can't reload fast enough to shoot bambi twice, get gud.

Shotguns, semi-auto anything and hand-guns can DIAF as far as I'm concerned there is no real need for them. Unless you have some cause to be in potential snake dens, then you can have a hand-fun with shot-shell.

Great, now Bambi has to suffer even longer while the hunter who didn't pull off a kill shot reloads his one shot manual reload rifle.

Thanks StoOgE.

 

[Pandy]

And as he's started numerous times, calling for an outright ban of semi-auto weapons is an impossibility because of how amendments work. It would be more useful to fight for better regulations in the registration process.

I'm a strong supporter of gun ownership, but I 100% agree that we need better background checks and licensing.

'Impossibility' is such craven nonsense given the scale and seriousness of the problem, but it's very often the go-to last line of defence against 'real' gun control.

It's not the Bible, it's a piece of legislation.

 

[LlamaJohnson]

It's not the Bible, it's a piece of legislation.

It's the Constitution, the thing that separates us from many other countries around the world. That piece of legislation is more important than the Bible, as far as our country is concerned.

 

[Orayn]

It's the Constitution, the thing that separates us from many other countries around the world. That piece of legislation is more important than the Bible, as far as our country is concerned.

Many other countries have constitutions, our main distinction is treating ours like the Bible. Getting kind of circular, don't you think?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Do you think the M1A with Balance and Coolheaded be considered an assault rifle or a sportsman rifle? Would I be able recalibrate at Walmart for enough money?

 

[fr0st]

Do you think the M1A with Balance and Coolheaded be considered an assault rifle or a sportsman rifle? Would I be able recalibrate at Walmart for enough money?

Wrong thread man.
Balanced is useless now anyways.

 

[mkenyon]

Do you think the M1A with Balance and Coolheaded be considered an assault rifle or a sportsman rifle? Would I be able recalibrate at Walmart for enough money?

It's not an assault rifle unless it is fully automatic.

 

[Kin5290]

It's not an assault rifle unless it is fully automatic.

Doesn't the M16A2 and A4 have Safe/Semi/Burst fire modes? They would still be considered assault rifles.

 

[mlclmtckr]

It's the Constitution, the thing that separates us from many other countries around the world. That piece of legislation is more important than the Bible, as far as our country is concerned.

And that near-religious reverence for the literal words of the Constitution is also the millstone around America's neck.

Seriously, politicians don't argue about outcomes or statistics or real people's lives, everything is based on this 200 year old piece of paper. It's aggressively anti-empirical and it's the root of American anti-intellectualism.

The whole Republican campaign against Obamacare is rooted in constitutional objections. Did the Framers have an opinion about socialized medicine? No. Did the Framers have any of the information that would be helpful in forming an opinion about it? No.

Other countries have constitutions, it's true. But they tend to cover the rights of the citizen and the rules of elections. Politicians don't have to view every single law through the lens of an eighteenth-century document.

 

[aeolist]

And that near-religious reverence for the literal words of the Constitution is also the millstone around America's neck.

Seriously, politicians don't argue about outcomes or statistics or real people's lives, everything is based on this 200 year old piece of paper. It's aggressively anti-empirical and it's the root of American anti-intellectualism.

The whole Republican campaign against Obamacare is rooted in constitutional objections. Did the Framers have an opinion about socialized medicine? No. Did the Framers have any of the information that would be helpful in forming an opinion about it? No.

Other countries have constitutions, it's true. But they tend to cover the rights of the citizen and the rules of elections. Politicians don't have to view every single law through the lens of an eighteenth-century document.

the constitution isn't really the problem since it's generally worded in such a way as to allow diverse interpretations to exist. the problem is conservative interpretations.

"a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is the opening line of the second amendment, and for quite a while we had reasonable gun laws because SCOTUS used that phrasing and the historical context of the way 18th century militias were armed and organized in their rulings.

then the NRA became a serious political force and hijacked the republican party who appointed federal judges and justices incubated in an extremist school of political thought, and now that opening clause might as well not exist.

it could easily go back the other way with the right kind of judicial appointees, who could rule that the second amendment was not intended to provide the right for a citizen to own arbitrary numbers of any kind of gun they like and carry them in public whether concealed or in the open.

 

[xandaca]

Should just ban all guns except the one which looks like a Klobb. If that were the only one available, people could fire as much as they wanted and never hit anything, and do next to no damage even if they did.

 

[mkenyon]

Doesn't the M16A2 and A4 have Safe/Semi/Burst fire modes? They would still be considered assault rifles.

Yes, but you can't buy one in most states. In others, you still need to get an ATF tax stamp and approval process that takes months to years, which can be denied for no reason. And you also need to find one for sale, since all automatic firearms made after 1984 are illegal. When you do find one, and did get the tax stamp, be ready to pony up $10k+.

And that near-religious reverence for the literal words of the Constitution is also the millstone around America's neck.

Seriously, politicians don't argue about outcomes or statistics or real people's lives, everything is based on this 200 year old piece of paper. It's aggressively anti-empirical and it's the root of American anti-intellectualism.

The whole Republican campaign against Obamacare is rooted in constitutional objections. Did the Framers have an opinion about socialized medicine? No. Did the Framers have any of the information that would be helpful in forming an opinion about it? No.

Other countries have constitutions, it's true. But they tend to cover the rights of the citizen and the rules of elections. Politicians don't have to view every single law through the lens of an eighteenth-century document.

Before I begin, I do want so say that I agree we should not view he constitution as infallible and unchangable. Nor have we, historically. There's a host of amendments that have been added since the document was drafted, and there will absolutely be more. It begins to get dangerous to hope that a simple majority should be able to rewrite parts of that, though. Tyranny of the majority, and all that.

There's also a lot of people who believe in the principle of an armed populace, and feel that deaths as a result of that right are not something that can be measured against the value of it.

The sane ones in that camp (like myself), understand that things absolutely need to be done to minimize the casualties while also maintaining the right, hence my suggestion in the OP.

the constitution isn't really the problem since it's generally worded in such a way as to allow diverse interpretations to exist. the problem is conservative interpretations.

"a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is the opening line of the second amendment, and for quite a while we had reasonable gun laws because SCOTUS used that phrasing and the historical context of the way 18th century militias were armed and organized in their rulings.

then the NRA became a serious political force and hijacked the republican party who appointed federal judges and justices incubated in an extremist school of political thought, and now that opening clause might as well not exist.

it could easily go back the other way with the right kind of judicial appointees, who could rule that the second amendment was not intended to provide the right for a citizen to own arbitrary numbers of any kind of gun they like and carry them in public whether concealed or in the open.

Did you just ignore my post earlier?

There's reams of case law regarding almost every aspect of the 2nd Amendment. It's not just one decision that can change all of it with a single stroke. That's not how courts work. They'd essentially need to undo almost all of it, one at a time, in order to get to a point you're describing.

What you are describing is what an amendment is, not a SCOTUS decision is.

 

[aeolist]

Did you just ignore my post earlier?

There's reams of case law regarding almost every aspect of the 2nd Amendment. It's not just one decision that can change all of it with a single stroke. That's not how courts work. They'd essentially need to undo almost all of it, one at a time, in order to get to a point you're describing.

What you are describing is what an amendment is, not a SCOTUS decision is.

dc v heller in 2008 was the first supreme court case that affirmed that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun.

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

if this 5-4 case had gone the other way the district of columbia would have been able to effectively ban handguns. reversing this one decision would enable all kinds of gun regulations that are currently unconstitutional.

and i disagree with your apparent assertion that meaningful regulation is possible under current case law.

e. and previous case law that you've cited is also irrelevant. the supreme court has essentially ruled that the militia clause cannot be used to justify any laws restricting gun ownership. as of right now it doesn't exist and the second amendment provides unrestricted civilian access to guns.

 

[mkenyon]

dc v heller in 2008 was the first supreme court case that affirmed that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun.

This is false. It simply affirmed previous rulings.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms:

I'm on mobile and am now getting a weird DNS errors with a number of websites, but almost every ruling of the SCOTUS on the 2nd Amendment includes language regarding individuals and the right to bear arms.

US vs Miller even goes as far to say individuals have the right to own firearms that would be in common use for infantry in the military.

*edit*

Before getting bogged down in that for fun, I do want to restate that a much easier path would be for an expansion of New York's process for buying handguns. The ATF already has a process for it through NFA licensing, just expand it for ALL gun sales, and make it Shall Issue. Problem solved.

This will reduce proliferation, and also help to erode gun culture over time, giving people who want wider bans a much better chance at an amendment in the future.

 

[aeolist]

This is false. It simply affirmed previous rulings.


I'm on mobile and am now getting a weird DNS errors with a number of websites, but almost every ruling of the SCOTUS on the 2nd Amendment includes language regarding individuals and the right to bear arms.

US vs Miller even goes as far to say individuals have the right to own firearms that would be in common use for infantry in the military.

presser v illinois was a question of state rights in restricting and regulating militias, and the ruling was that the second amendment affirms a right that cannot be abridged by congress but that doesn't hold for state governments. basically it said that states could forbid private armies, and i don't understand your interpretation.

us vs miller upheld the national firearms act and is cited by both sides of the debate as upholding their position. ironically, gun rights advocates depend on the militia clause for their interpretation, and as i've said the militia clause is essentially nonexistent in current case law.

 

[Jonm1010]

Fascinating show on black market gun sales on ViceTV right now, hosted by Michael K Williams(Omar Little).

Basically they show in detail how they use the gun show loophole to buy and move guns onto the black market. Using front buyers to buy from private sellers that then get a kickback to sell to the traffickers who then sell them in major cities like Chicago, Atlanta, New York etc. But for X price and then sell for Y price based on market forces in various cities.

 

[Lord Morairty007]

Fascinating show on black market gun sales on ViceTV right now, hosted by Michael K Williams(Omar Little).

Basically they show in detail how they use the gun show loophole to buy and move guns onto the black market. Using front buyers to buy from private sellers that then get a kickback to sell to the traffickers who then sell them in major cities like Chicago, Atlanta, New York etc. But for X price and then sell for Y price based on market forces in various cities.

https://www.viceland.com/en_us/show/black-market-with-michael-k-williams I think everyone should watch it. Very informative.

 

[mkenyon]

Fascinating show on black market gun sales on ViceTV right now, hosted by Michael K Williams(Omar Little).

Basically they show in detail how they use the gun show loophole to buy and move guns onto the black market. Using front buyers to buy from private sellers that then get a kickback to sell to the traffickers who then sell them in major cities like Chicago, Atlanta, New York etc. But for X price and then sell for Y price based on market forces in various cities.

https://www.viceland.com/en_us/show/black-market-with-michael-k-williams I think everyone should watch it. Very informative.

Great stuff!

I hope more states expand the ban on private sales. I was glad to see it pass after voting yes on it in Washington State.