It's not about the 2nd Amendment - it's about the NRA.

[kentuck]

Nobody is going to take your guns. You can keep your 9mm by your bed in case someone breaks into your home. You can keep your shotgun to protect your home and family. You can keep your rifle, with a scope, with which you hunt deer and elk.

But, the AR-15, an assault weapon which serves no purpose except to kill people in wars, must be taken off the streets. It is not about the 2nd Amendment. It is about the NRA provoking violence within our society. We have a duty and responsibility to protect our children and our citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, and the NRA has become an enemy of the people. We need to get these assault weapons off the street and out of the hands of unstable people.

The 2nd Amendment does not give anyone the right to kill his fellow citizens. It does not give a person the opportunity to kill his fellow citizens. It is an elaborate ruse created by the NRA to sell more guns, by instilling fear and conspiracy in the minds of paranoid Americans.

[Marengo]

1. What do you mean by taken off the streets?

[kentuck]

2. They should be banned and confiscated.

They have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and they should be taken out of the hands of criminals on the street.

[PoliticAverse]

3. "Nobody is going to take your guns." .... "They should be banned and confiscated." n/t

[kentuck]

4. You are confusing assault weapons with your "guns"...

Unfortunately, that is exactly what the NRA wants.

[sarisataka]

29. See post 23

Who should gun owners believe, you who says only assault weapons will be banned or that poster who says everything will be banned?

[treestar]

45. No laws would exist if you assume the slippery slope

for all of them. There are laws against murder, so why should we believe we are allowed to kill in self defense?

[sarisataka]

61. In this case

It is not an assumption, it is an explicitly stated goal.

As an aside, there is a poster who pops into the gungeon several times a year. That person's opinion is every gun death should be legally treated as accidental or murder. Self defense should be neither an excuse nor mitigating factor.

[treestar]

67. That poster does not have a judgeship, so their opinion is not really

anything to worry about. Obviously, we gun grabbers want to ban the ones that can kill a lot of people in a short time - meant for war, etc., but then we are told regular handguns meet those descriptions, so we can't tease them out too well, since we are not interested in the details of guns, only in the fact they can kill people more easily than any other instrumentality.

[aikoaiko]

5. Many on DU probably agree with you, but not me.

I do agree that the second amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to kill innocent people, but it is my opinion that it protects the right to keep and bear semi-auto rifles.

There can be restrictions on them but not bans.


I don’t understand how you can say that no one is coming for my guns and then say you want to ban and confiscate my ARs?

[kentuck]

6. The NRA hides behind the 2nd Amendment.

Like the bunch of cowards that they are. Assault weapons have no useful place in our society.

[aikoaiko]

7. They are here in our society and very few are used to kill people.

Far fewer than that 9mm you think is protected by the Second Amendment.

Do you really want to confiscate my guns?

[kentuck]

9. "Do you really want to confiscate my guns?"

Your AR-15s?

Damn right!

[aikoaiko]

11. Then you should amend your OP.

Gun confiscation of ARs and the like will never happen so I’m happy to suggest that you tilt st that windmill.

[kentuck]

14. Let's start by not calling your AR-15 your "gun".

It is an assault weapon. A military assault weapon.

[aikoaiko]

16. The AR15 is not used in combat by the US militry

The conflation of AR15s and M16/M4s is misleading, Kentuck.

Granted there are similarities one I can buy new and one I cannot because of a significant difference.

Again, the AR in my closet is as much my gun as the 9mm you say is protected.

[Lee-Lee]

18. And assault weapon can mean anything you want it to

The pending legislation in Minnesota right now would label my dads 100 year old .22 rifle an “assault weapon” if it passes.

When you make up a term then you can just keep changing the definition to cover more and more. And before you say that won’t happen- the legislation out there that keeps expanding the definition of “assault weapon” more and more proves it to be the case.

[kentuck]

20. NRA argument.

Pure BS.

[Lee-Lee]

22. Not BS at all. I even provided a example you can look up yourself

Are you claiming the legislation I cited doesn’t exist?

[gejohnston]

35. statement of fact,

That is the proposed law. A proposed law in Oregon will say that the 9mm is an "assault weapon". In New York, target pistols commonly used in the Olympics and World Cup like the Walther GSP is banned as an "assault weapon" simply because the magazine well is outside of the grip. That is what happens when people who don't know anything about guns want to regulate guns.
Yes, AR-15s are used for hunting and rarely used in crime. The whole anti AR moral panic is just like the switchblade laws in the 1950s and the anti pot panic in the 1920s and 1930s.

BTW, if "NRA argument" is your argument, your argument is not valid.

[treestar]

48. You guys try to make it impossible

to define which guns are to be banned. You're only encouraging us to say OK we give up, ban them all.

[Lee-Lee]

52. What are you talking about?

How is anyone making it “impossible to define?”

Literally all the laws we are quoting are real definitions put into law or proposed law by gun prohibitionists.

All we are doing is pointing out the facts of what those laws do and say.

If that’s a problem, take it up with the people who authored the legislation.

But when I point out that the definition of “assault weapon” is being continually expanded in legislation to the point where it in some places now literally classifies 100+ year old .22 rifles as “assault weapons” that is noting more than a statement of fact.

It isn’t an “NRA talking point”. Well, it may be but only because the people backing this legislation gave it to them.

It isn’t the fault of gun owners. We didn’t author the bad legislation.

So if you want to blame someone for it, blame the morons who wrote the legislation. Not the people who just point out what it says and how absurd it is.

[treestar]

53. Well, how could they have defined it?

What definition could they use to get it so people can't get their hands easily on guns that can kill more than ten people in 20 seconds?

Nobody with all that knowledge willing to help us with that.

[Lee-Lee]

58. Maybe you should stop and think about that

“Nobody who actually knows what they are doing or talking about will help me with what I want to do”.

Usually people eventually figure out why nobody with a clue will help them with their plans- and it’s because their plans don’t make any sense.

However, in this case it’s not secret knowledge. Anyone can research it and become knowledgeable enough in it.

So there are two possible explanations- one possibility is the people authoring this legislation don’t care enough to become educated on a subject before attempting to regulate the items. It’s not like this handy happened before, we see it when old white men try to regulate women’s health care as one example.

The other possibility is that they have educated themselves on the subject, and know exactly what they are doing. And they are saying one think “assault weapons”, while writing the legislation much broader and hoping by just calling it “assault weapons” they can get much more done because the public doesn’t know what they actually mean. We see that in other legislation too, we can look back at attempts to regulate abortion clinics under the guise of “safety” by pushing laws that are much more than safety but safety regulations made impossible or almost impossible for most providers to meet. And knowing that’s what the end result will be.

[Marengo]

28. LOL! You are seriously attempting to argue an AR-15 isnt a gun?

[NickB79]

33. How many billions you have to do so?

I'm reasonably confident, given recent court rulings and the composition of the Supreme Court, that confiscation of millions of guns with no compensation would be illegal.

Tens of millions of semiautos, at $500-$1500 each on average, plus the cost to collect them and destroy them, adds up fast.

[appal_jack]

25. Does the ACLU "hide" behind the 1st Amendment?

Supporting the vigorous exercise and continued protection of a part of the US Constitution is anything but 'hiding.'

You are calling for the most popular rifles sold over the last three decades in the US to be banned. That's a fact you will not be able to hide, no matter how you spin it.

-app

[Vinca]

8. Gun humpers need to be reminded there was an assault weapon ban in place for years and

it didn't damage the 2nd amendment. All rights come with some restrictions. Look at the nightmare some have to go through to exercise their right to vote. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. The 2nd amendment doesn't mean you can own anything and everything a deadly projectile exits from.

[kentuck]

10. Most gun owners understand that.

But the NRA is constantly filling their brains about the government coming to take their "guns", falsely claiming that all their guns are at risk. And they fall for it.

[gejohnston]

36. That is because they are,

we are talking about banning a gun that is almost never used in crime (according to the FBI/UCR, bare hands outnumber all rifles combined), the scream will be more.
Then a "loophole" will be discovered, like the Ruger mini 14s.

[PoliticAverse]

12. The "assault weapon ban" didn't ban all AR-15 type semi-automatic rifles. n/t

[hexola]

13. Exactly - mention this when they bring up the "Slippery Slope"

We had a ban - and then we didn't...that's not a very slippery slope...

[aikoaiko]

15. Many people did think the AWB violated the Second Amendment

Which is why we supported it going away.
I agree that the Second Amendment has its limits but I do think it protects semi-auto rifles.

[Lee-Lee]

17. And it also didnt reduce crime at all, so why do it again?

It was a law that banned guns based on how they looked and not much more.

And it had no measurable effect on crime.

About the only thing it did was for a few years made magazines over 10 rounds a little more expansive since you could only get ones made before 1994.

But even that effect won’t be an issue anymore. Technology now let’s anyone print a magazine with a 3d printer, so anyone intent on criminal activity can make their own now if you try to ban them again.

If a law has been tried and failed to accomplish what you want to accomplish, why advocate doing the same thing again?

[kentuck]

19. Respectfully, that is a very weak argument.

As if the problem has not worsened at all.

Like the little girl with the curl, when she was good, she was very, very good. And when she was bad, she was horrid.

When these assault weapons are used, they are horrid. They kill large numbers at one time. Many times, it is children that are killed.

Why do anything? They can print them on their 3-D printers.

Really?

[Lee-Lee]

21. What problem do you speak of when you say

“As if the problem has not worsened at all”?

[shanny]

24. Mass shootings,

which have increased, even while "violent crime" in General has dropped.

That ongoing drop in violent crime is a favorite NRA talking point / dodge, in case you weren't aware.

[hack89]

26. That was only because the AWB allowed people to buy and own AR-15 type weapons

it was not an actual ban.

[NickB79]

32. There was no actual ban whatsoever

The AWB made cosmetic features like flash hiders and bayonet lugs illegal. Guess what? An AR doesn't need those to function. Gun makers just stopped adding those pieces and viola! An AR-15 fully legal to sell again. And they sold millions of them.

How do I know? I worked in a large sporting goods store in college that had a wall full of them.

The one thing the ban did stop was new high-capacity magazines from hitting the streets. But used ones were still legal to own and sell.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. The problem with trying to differentiate one gun from another is the discussion in this thread

I see it far less complicated.

Ban all guns and confiscate all that are out there right now. Make simple possession a serious felony.

See? That's real easy to understand.

[MichMary]

27. Yes, easy to understand,

but unconstitutional, and any D that runs espousing that idea will go down in flames. (Figuratively.)

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Constitutionality is a debatable issue

Remember "well regulated militia"? A person who owns a gun is NOT a militia. A person who owns a gun is a gun fetishist.

[Marengo]

44. As militia membership is not a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms, its moot.

[NickB79]

49. The Supreme Court dismissed that argument in Heller

And ruled the right of an individual to own a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right.

So no, it is no longer a debateable issue, at least not until the court reverses itself many years from now.

[sarisataka]

31. The OP claims

Complete gun confiscation is an nra lie. Who is telling the truth?

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Im not the OP. I am stating my view on the matter.

[sarisataka]

42. It is a simple true/false

The statement

Nobody is going to take your guns. You can keep your 9mm by your bed in case someone breaks into your home. You can keep your shotgun to protect your home and family. You can keep your rifle, with a scope, with which you hunt deer and elk.

Is false as you, and others like you, would confiscate such guns-were it in your power to do so.
Am I correct?

[Stinky The Clown]

43. If I had the power, I would take the guns.

So yeah. You are either with the gun humpers or you're not.

There is no such thing as common sense gun regulations. Just as gun fetishists like to nyeah nyeah nyeah about the definition of an assault rifle, the only sure way to make the world safer is to ban all private gun ownership. No middle ground.

That's where I am.

[treestar]

50. Since the gunners always want to make it impossible to

define which ones to ban, maybe we really should suggest banning them all.

[sarisataka]

62. Folks with knowledge

Of firearms are exactly the ones who could phrase the laws correctly to make them effective. It is hardly the fault of any "gunner" when a person who wears their ignorance as a badge of honor suggests a law that will have no effect.

For myself, I will not support anyone whose goal is complete prohibition of civilian firearms ownership. I believe that is unconstitutional and also is against the Democratic Party platform.

[treestar]

66. That's exactly it, they won't tell us.

However, in practice, the rest of us would learn how to word the laws. Someone will go to court defending that the weapon they have is not "automatic" - then the court rules and the legislature can use that decision to rewrite the law. Laws develop that way all the time.

[hack89]

34. Once you detach your solutions from reality, things do get simpler and easy to understand.

but in the real world, the problem is complex as are any solutions. You cannot ignore American political, legal and cultural reality when proposing "solutions".

[Stinky The Clown]

41. The reality is that there is a small but growing sentiment in favor of my position.

To be sure, it is a slow, loooong, uphill fight.

I do, however, take heart from countries like Australia.

[Marengo]

46. Australia now has a higher rate of private firearms ownership than before Port Arthur.

[hack89]

47. There are plenty of guns in Australia

not only did they did not ban guns in Australia, they are not even considering it.

[Initech]

30. Huge difference between 90s NRA and today's NRA:

Back in the 90s, the NRA actually made sensible, thought out, rational arguments on gun control.

Today, the NRA is the insane, paranoid, hateful propaganda spreading conspiracy theory arm of the GOP. They morphed into a bully organization. They either need to shape up or ship out.

[gejohnston]

37. that and they wrote the new Florida law

[bucolic_frolic]

38. Paranoid? Is that those people who scream WITCH HUNT!?

[gay texan]

51. The AR-15, the SKS, and the AK-47

Were designed for combat and taking out people. That's all they were ever designed for. They are not for hunting or placing on the mantle over the fireplace.

They are of no use to anyone, except for those RWNJ who want to pretend they are TOUGH!!!!!! "I'm ready to take over the gubbiment if I need to, yuk yuk yuk"

[Marengo]

54. Whats the difference between an SKS and Remington Model 8?

[gay texan]

57. One is cheap, the other expensive....

One was made in the soviet union in the early 40's when Hitler decided to invade the place and Stallin was in complete freak out mode. Designed to be reliable , a quick replacement for the Mosin bolt action, and easy to make with whatever steel They could get their hands on. Seriously loose tolerances meant that it would still work when full of dirt and sand.

The other was a hunting rifle and highly sought after by collectors. I believe the Feds used them for a while

[Marengo]

59. Cost and availability aside, they are arguably similar. The Rem M8 could be had in extended and...

Detachable magazine configuration. Frank Hamer used one with a 15 round magazine during the ambush of Bonnie and Clyde. I’m not certain if the M8 should be considered more lethal, but they seem comparable. My point in making the comparison is to ask the question why ban one and not the other. As for the SKS, small numbers were fielded in 1945 for combat testing but it didn’t enter mass production until 1949.

[zipplewrath]

55. Magazines

Clips, whatever you want to call them. That's what needs to be regulated. Guns only kill when they have ammunition in them. We limit mass shootings when we limit their rate of fire. Limit weapons to 6 rounds before reloading. Limit clips/magazines to 6 bullets. The 2nd doesn't say we can't regulate the size of clips.

[Stinky The Clown]

56. Kentucky, I find it amazing how this thread reads like a post on the NRA's web site . . . .

. . . . or wherever gun fetishists gather to share their love for guns and defense of their fetish.

[aikoaiko]

60. Maybe because its not an NRA thing, but rather a civil liberty thing.

That's the ticket.

[Stinky The Clown]

64. More likely, its a gun fetish thing

[aikoaiko]

65. Or that.

[loyalsister]

63. NRA interpretations of the 2nd Amendment dominate

Laws passed in various states keep lowering the standard of threat required for "self-defense." And, they are continuously moving us in a direction that enshrines a right to kill on offense. If there is a right to own and use guns that are specifically designed to kill people and there is no duty to retreat, the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is understood by courts and citizens is clearly a right to kill people who look at them the wrong way or whose skin color they find "threatening."

You can't separate the NRA from the 2nd Amendment when the courts and lawmakers are adopting their interpretation.

[hunter]

68. Gun fetishes are a public health hazard just like smoking and drunk driving.

They ought to be treated as such.

Anyone who loves their guns, especially hand guns and assault type weapons has a problem.

For now, the law may not be adequate, but parents and children, spouses and lovers, friends and community can encourage gun fetishists to destroy their weapons, and seek help for whatever problems make them desire these sorts of weapons.

The law will follow, just as it did for drunk driving and smoking.

Gun fetishes are dangerous and disgusting.