Sorry if my response had inappropriate snark. I just don't understand the "first they came for the guns and then we were all speaking German" line of thinking when that could've been said for slavery, unlimited presidential terms, the selection of the vice president, whites only voting, states rights to set their own voting ages, poll taxes, alcohol then the correction of the prohibition of alcohol. Why is guns so special because it was one of the first 10 instead of one of the last 10?

With some odd exceptions, yes they are.

What on earth are you talking about Ikes? Look up the definition of assault rifle. It must be capable of automatic fire, by definition, to be an 'assault rifle'.

errrrrrr

Those pics are pretty clearly assault guns and should obv be banned.

Well, that's exactly how assault weapon rules were made. They aren't about how dangerous or powerful a gun is, it's about how scary they look. It's not exactly compelling policy however.

okay. semantikes again. got it. IDK why it took me so long to put you on ignore but gl in your life.

Can the assault weapons vs assault rifles debate be banned? That problem has been solved. Let's move on to describing the benefits of guns to our society. I'm genuinely curious and open to the fact that I am just city folk who just doesn't get it.

You talked about an assault weapons ban in california, which obviously refers to assault weapons as the assault rifle ban is federal.... then got snotty with the definition and when you figured out that you were at fault for the misunderstanding it is my fault how exactly? Right after we had this discussion?

Did you do this on purpose to try to make me look bad? lol

There have been two excellent resources posted on the last page that explicitly explained the difference between the legally-defined terms of assault weapon and assault rifle.

But, yeah, ikes is the *******s here.

Some people hunt - not just for sport but for food.

Guys kill this thread. According to my FB feed, this was a false flag and never really happened. I've come to the conclusion that there are some people who think nobody has ever died.

They can't fish or go to the store?

Is sustenance really the reason why hunting is an imperative activity to protect? What are exemptions that people skeptical of gun bans would need to be on board?

I frequently hear that pro-gun people are largely pro-gun control regarding types of weapons, but what about regulating merchants and just banning them all except those for basic hunting uses?

Like, if marines would use them while bumrushing Tikrit, maybe ban. Is that really extreme lefty ivory tower?

Okay. I'm drunk and mad and should refrain from posting. My bad.

One of the primary reasons "winning" in the Middle East is so difficult is because of armed citizens fwiw, and those who think the "resistant to government tyranny" arguments are laughable seem to be very ignorant to the history of civilizations.

Dirt poor people who live inland cant just go to the store to buy a deer, no.

I'm generally anti-gun but you asked what the benefits were. Go to rural Maine and you'll see how valuable a large dead animal is to certain people. Roadkill doesn't last for long.

Thanks. I was honestly ignorant to this.

So there's a totally reasonable exemption to my vulgar gun ban. Rifles to shoot deer, squirrels, rabbits, etc.

Fair, but my point was pretty clear. Hand guns are responsible for the vast, vast majority of gun deaths in the US, and two semi-auto pistols can do comparable damage to something like an AR-15, and rifles were responsible for something like 250 murders in 2014 out of 12k total deaths. And a lot of the mass killings shootings that make up those large counts reported are hand guns.

And the reason to raise this is to show how easily conversations and narratives shift and much of this is signaling. Somehow a domestic terrorist attack has turned to a moratorium on "assault weapons", where "assault weapons" makeup a relatively small % of gun violence, and not even an insane % of mass shootings.

And the counter to that is "so? So we shouldn't DO SOMETHING?!" And this same tact is taken by the same people who will point out the likelihood of being killed by a terrorist is minimal compared to X, so don't worry about it. But the same argument this way, you're cornered and all called a nut.


fair points, but I addressed somewhat when pointing out the Bill of Rights. The BoR is our bedrock. Messing it with it seems like a bigger deal than selling booze.

And I might be completely wrong, but another argument: most of those examples you cited were actual increases in freedom and in the name of liberty. Slavery, women's lack of suffrage, man's desire to imbibe, etc etc, were all restrictions on freedom by the state.

In the wording of the BoR, and the philosophy upon which it was based, self-defense is an inherent right. And I tend to agree, but obviously there are limits, as I'm not allowed to put a mine field in my yard. So I dunno.

I'm being glib here, but https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/you-a...ith-your-guns/

I tend to agree with that, but there are of course counter-examples, even in US borders.

Hunting is also an effective means of animal preservation and population control. Hunting licenses aren't just something we hand out to placate those HUNTER LOONIES, they're measured means to keep local ecosystems balanced. Though this specific issue I think you could work around sans gun ownership. It's at least doable.

KC,

RE: limits to the right of self-defense

Your point on minefields on your own property isn't a violation of the 2nd Amendment but greatly isolating the types of firearms for the same reasons is? Why?

I think this is why a Constitutional amendment is not enough. Amendments are deliberately concise and firearms bans ought to start with the ban, then make exemptions to not hinder the right to self-defense then?

Like, we have an amendment against the government use of cruel and unusual punishment. Then there are statutes and judicial interpretations of "cruel and unusual". Why not the same ban on guns with a self-defense exemption where federal bills classify arms, require the GPS trackers with disarming capabilities (another question I asked earlier that was buried in other discussion)?

Funny, when I called you out for posting like this you basically said you didn't give a ****. Now you give a **** about it on other people? Physician, heal thyself.

You're not wrong. KC's schtick has been leaning super-hard lately on "guy who's snarkily dismissive of everybody under the guise of Reasonable Centrist."

that may well be reasonable. And obviously cities/states already have effectively greatly reduced/hindered/made impossible to purchase and/or carry firearms, so it's not a constitutionally impossible.

eta: @ OiOiOi

funny always the key points. I'm pretty funny . Bluff got me pretty good, that was funny. "SLAVERY".. meh.

Comedy remains as ever in the eye of the beholder. You find your posts funny on their own merit. I find them funny because you're complaining that a thread that is full of posting in the style which you post far more than any other "serves no purpose" because of that fact.

and nath, considering my words per post on such topics over the past week or two rivals empire man and micro bob, being snarkily dismissive seems like a stretch. I will hire Hoya for my defense if I have to. Not to mention there's a clear difference between the ball-busting barbershop of the FACK and a thread specifically set aside for some interesting discussions that may touch on mature subjects.

I mean, I typically hate this tact, but you're siding with TuT here, and TuT is doing his typical TuT thing, being curt and bordering on trolling and never wishing to think about things at anything even slightly in excess of topical, which you always rail on him about, but you happen to side with him on this, so now he's an ally.

All I do is process arguments and react. I try to remove previous-posting-by-poster bias as best possible, which is why when Ikes makes an OK, perfectly reasonable set of posts, and is even answering questions from a poster itt (Chad was asking about distinctions), everyone else is just like "OMG WTF IKES IKES IKES IKES WHAT A ******", and I can just be like "uhh, Ikes is fine."

Association bias is so wildly high on this forum it's insane.

Islamophobic bigotry favors ________ recruiting most.

A.) ISIS
B.) GOP