For those who want to ban so called, "assault rifles"....
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
First. AR15’s etc are not assault rifles on par with M16’s. They share a lot of features but full auto isn’t one of them.
Second. Vietnam. Afghanistan. They also brought knives to a gunfight and won.
If 1% of 100,000,000 gun owners consolidated and fought back, they would be impossible to subdue with an organized military - never mind the fractured divided one that would occur if ordered to ignore the Constitution and fire on US citizens. And if that happened, that force would grow and be supported by citizens in the red states. It would be a nightmare for the federal government.
All due respect but this is bar far the dumbest of all arguments against the idea that private gun ownership is a final solution for tyranny. It absolutely is.
You big dummies.
Rule 1
The inherent evil in men will continue to manifest itself in mass casualty incidents.
Rule 2
No legislation, IE banning, restricting, outlawing certain weapons or features of weapons will change Rule 1.
An exercise in futility.
Rule 1
The inherent evil in men will continue to manifest itself in mass casualty incidents.
Rule 2
No legislation, IE banning, restricting, outlawing certain weapons or features of weapons will change Rule 1.
An exercise in futility.
I agree.
Do you think it is possible to reduce the frequency or scope of mass casualty incidents? Because the goal should not be to eliminate them...that's is unrealistic. I see no reason to attempt to reduce the frequency/scope, rather than throwing up our hands and saying "it is what it is".
You can attack it from a mental health standpoint...but you still have over 300 million guns out there.
It's pure folly to believe we'll muster millions of goons to confiscate them.
In that regard you're right.
It is what it is.
The only reason it's topical is for some self serving sycophants to get elected.
Last edited:
I don't think there are even 100,000,000 adults in the U.S.
I know there are not 100,000,000 gun owners in the U.S.
The problem with your point is that it is unrealistic to expect all gun owners to consolidate and function as an organized unit. It would be more likely that there would be pockets of organized resistance, which would be easy to subdue by well trained, and better equipped, government forces.
I agree with the bolded portion. Can you please point out where I suggested that private gun ownership should cease in this country? Can you show where I suggested anything remotely along those lines?
Really? Please tell me how your are going to find the individuals who have a mental health disorder that would allow them to commit a mass shooting? What is your plan for finding these guys so that they can receive the treatment they need?
Hey, I'm diagnostician.
The treatment, cure is way above my pay grade.
What is your plan to screen out the nut jobs?
I don't think it is possible. That's why I think "It's a mental health issue" is a copout. I like the idea of adding hurdles that require these young, dumb, disaffected youths to work harder to acquire their weapon of mass murder. It increased the chances that they will make a mistake and out themselves before they can carry out the crime.
Well, if you could convince them of one basic axiom, that is it's wrong to kill another human being, you could be an entity unto yourself.
First off... “weapon of mass murder”... come on. You should be better than that.
Second, what you just proposed would have zero effect on reducing the frequency, scope, or scale of a mass casualty event. If they can’t get one legally, they’d just get one illegally.
Huh? What? The are more than 250,000,000 people aged 18 and over in the US.
True, but it's estimated that 30% of adults own at least 1 firearm, and almost half of US households have at least one firearm. 30% of 250,000,000 is 75,000,000 people.
How many soldiers do all of the armed services combined have? It's a ridiculous stretch to think that 100% of the people in the military would wage war on their fellow citizens. In fact, I'd say the number would be ridiculously small. If you think ridiculously small can defeat even 10,000,000, let me refer you to the Vietnam War to dispel that notion.
The person giving the order to fire on civilians is much more likely to be killed by the military than the civilians.
I am not a gun owner, have not shot one since the early 70's, at which point I swore I'd never touch another one as long as I live. So I'm pretty ignorant of definitions. I do know, however, that the term "assault rifle" is very controversial and is a term the gun abolitionists bandy about as means to frighten the uninitiated (like me) or insult the opposition. So I would ask you: what is your definition of an assault rifle, and what differentiates it from another type of gun that causes you to want to make it difficult for the average citizen to acquire, and include additional prejudices on young men who are considered old enough to use the weapon on the behalf of the government, but not mature enough to own one privately?
You're damn skippy on that point.
Actually, most school shooters survive. Its shooters at other locales that end up dead. I think bullying is one piece of these events in some cases, but one could argue that that's not a 'random' school shooting. That's retaliation for a behavior that we disallow lesser resolution to. When reported to schools, they seldomly do anything about it. And kids are no longer allowed to settle things with fist-a-cuffs like we did when we were kids.
We've already established that I agree that armed citizens is the remedy for tyranny and I don't want to disarm the populace. No need to get picky over numbers or debate various imaginary scenarios.
In my scenario, citizens still have plenty of weapons and government forces are still reticent to take them on in an act of war.
I think you misunderstood. I use that term to show that I am not just talking about guns. It can refer to a bomb, a rented U-haul, or any other "weapon of mass murder".
Exactly! This is what I am talking about. If they have to get it illegally, the chances increase that someone rats them out. It makes it easier for L.E. to set up stings to ferret out these losers. This is a means for identifying the bad guys before they get the chance to commit the crime.
Your problem is that you’ve just made a large swath of people ineligible; thus, forcing them into what should otherwise be a legal activity.
It’s the same example as pot. How many people are in jail for pot related crimes that wouldn’t be if pot were simply legal? Are you really prepared to make felons out of a good chunk of the population?
I for one would go purchase one if it were made illegal for me to do so. Why? Because FVCK you. That’s why. Do you really think what you are proposing will be effective?
My solution is just as effective if not more so than yours is. It addresses one facet of the attacks that occur by removing the 'reward' the shooter receives for his actions (the media attention). Your solution potentially removes that particular weapon from his hands over the next 20-30 years when the current millions of assault rifles in circulation dryup. You solution doesn't change the motivation of the shooters, so does NOTHING to address the root cause. It simply will change the "how".
I don’t see what you are saying. How am I making felons out of anyone?
What am I proposing that would make it illegal for you to purchase anything?
I’m just not convinced that media attention plays a part in many of these shootings. (Maybe a small percentage) I know that some guns played a part in all of them.
I haven't made anyone ineligible. I've simply forced people of a certain age to go through some extra steps to legally obtain certain potential weapons.
Sure you are. You are drawing an arbitrary line. I could easily find myself on the wrong side of that line as it moves. And if not me specifically, then that 25 year old.
I haven't said where we would draw the line. I haven't said which weapons would be affected and which would not. Maybe it is determined by rate of fire. Maybe by magazine capacity. Maybe something else. That would need to be discussed and agreed upon by lawmakers, proposed, then voted upon.
I haven't said what hurdles would be put in place. Also TBD.
I am also not precluding young men, not in the military, from acquiring said weapons. I am simply suggesting that they would have to do X, Y, or Z before being granted ownership.
My son is turning 18 later this year. If he joins the Army, they are not going to hand him a personal weapon on the first day. They are going to require him to do X, Y, and Z before they are comfortable giving him a gun.
The requirements might be different for an 18 year old in the military vs an 18 year old private citizen, but no one is being unduly discriminated against, IMO.
We already have an arbitrary line. It is easy to get A, B and C, but more difficult to get X, Y and Z. I am just moving it. You just want to keep things exactly as they are.
@Been Jammin honestly who on this forum or on the pay boards would you restrict from having a weapon?
Seriously? What a stupid question.
If I suspected any of you were likely to commit mass murder I would tell someone.
I don't know anything about 99% of the people you are talking about.
p.s. I'm not suggesting that anyone over 18 should automatically be restricted from owning a gun. I think I have made that abundantly clear.
But guns are just a tool and not a motivation or cause. So yes, you may change HOW these atrocities occur, but doesn't change what causes them. It also doesn't do anything in the short-term. There are a million assault rifles in circulation, and you said yourself, that you don't support mandatory buybacks. If you did outlaw and actually eliminate all Assault rifles, I'd expect the shootings to continue unabated but just with handguns instead. And you'd be right back here talking about why handguns should be eliminated from circulation and references the acceptances of limits on Assault rifles as the basis for the acceptability of limits applied to the 2nd amendment. My solution to the contrary won't change how these shootings occur. But I do think it will prevent some shootings that otherwise 'doing nothing' would allow.
BTW Been, thanks for the honest and non-screeching replies. There's nothing wrong with 2 people having differing opinions and being able to rationally discuss their positions without trying to shout down or demean the other.
I'm just going to leave this here. It amazes me that the political party of "we should ban it even if it only saves one life" trucks on full steam ahead with protecting criminal illegal immigrants from federal authorities. What about "even if it only saves one life" doesn't apply to criminal illegal aliens?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-sheriff-illegal-immigrant-shoots-deputy
https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-sheriff-illegal-immigrant-shoots-deputy
Your points are valid. My answer would be to start somewhere logical, and see what happens, rather than sitting on our hands and hoping we are not victims.
I'm thinking the Las Vegas shooter would not have done nearly as much harm with just handguns, and plenty of other shooters would have done less damage.
I have a hard time envisioning a realistic scenario where anyone is able to gain traction in an attempt to eliminate hand guns, shotguns and hunting rifles. I find it to be a bit alarmist to suggest that any kind of change to current gun laws would eventually end up going in that direction.
I don't have a hard time thinking that the slope only goes one way and if we give up rifles, then pistols and shotguns will be next on the chopping block.
I don't disagree with you that certain weapons could potentially increase the death-tolls. I wouldn't fight legislation in regards to banning bump-stocks or high-capacity/drum magazines both of which contributed to the LV shooting death toll. I could even support individual sale background checks as long as its not tied to a registration or gun-ownership database, and the government streamlined the background check process to a) be processed timely and b) be reasonably inexpensive.
If you read what I said again...
I am talking about 1% of that total. I think that is a very low %. Most likely it's much higher - maybe 10% that would actively resist and try to coordinate.
You think there aren't 100,000,000 gun owners? That's the number I've heard. But let's cut it in half and say 50,000,000 gun owners. Can I bump my 1% up o 2%?
That's still one million motivated (and in many cases - veterans) gun owners who will go to ground and fight back. That's a massive massive armed group that would have Robin Hood status amongst the vast majority of Americans who don't live in cities. They would be fed, hidden and equipped. And the US military - a volunteer force who pledges loyalty to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, would absolutely not 100% follow orders to fight these people. A significant portion of the standing US military would straight up join them. There is nothing unrealistic about that. If anything my numbers are low in this example.
The US civil war wasn't that long ago historically speaking. Neither was the American revolution. These are not far out ideas. And no - they would not be easily subdued by government forces. Pockets would form, and eventually they would consolidate. I seriously doubt you could count on every state, county and city providing police forces to assist in that kind of unConstitutional crackdown either. Many if not most of these "pockets" would be actively protected.
Not sure that's true. He wasn't aiming - he was spraying. Instead of a bumpstock he could've just filled both hands with pistols and fired both as fast as he could into the crowd. Magazine capacity is hugely overrated. It just takes a few seconds to change out a magazine on any gun.
Similar threads
