Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

Huh? I'm sorry. What exactly is being advocated for? You quoted me talking about how people being detained briefly between being accused of a crime and tried or released isn't applicable to the issue of gun rights. I'm not sure how that's "exactly" anything.

Are you saying that someone's gun rights should be suspended while under investigation for some set of activities? Ok. Which activities exactly would qualify? How long can said investigation go on while the person (who has not been charged with a crime) loses his 2nd amendment rights? What exactly does this entail? Does the person lose any weapons he current owns? Does the government seize them somehow? Or can he just not purchase any while in this status?

Assuming this is what you're advocating for, how does one prevent this from being abused? You get that some Black Lives Matters groups have been categorized as terrorist organizations, right? Who do you think will find themselves on the wrong end of this new government stick? You think the cops in Ferguson wouldn't use this power as an additional means of harassing black folks? Let's list that guy I suspect of drug dealing on the suspected terrorist list, and then use that as an excuse to search his home to seize any weapons he may have. And if we find evidence of any other crime, we'll get him for that. You seriously don't see the problems that will arise with something like this?

It's a terrible idea all the way around. Unless that's not what you meant. In which case, maybe you should actually tell me what you are advocating instead of tap dancing around. It's funny because every single time we have a thread like this, I ask the same question: What new regulations would you propose that would not violate the 2nd amendment, but which would have prevented this shooting event?

I have yet to get an answer that meets both those criteria. Most people don't even bother to try. They just repeat the same "we need more regulation" claim the next time the subject comes up. Well, to be honest, someone inevitably tries to argue for restricted magazine capacity or something, which I suppose is a bit more subjective. I don't happen to think that you can reduce the capacity sufficiently to actually prevent shootings like this, without at some point running into a constitutional issue. The problem is that the firearms we're legally allowed to own are supposed to meet the conditions of being usable for defense of liberty. That means home/personal defense, and potential use against an oppressive government. Even setting aside the second bit, the first is at some point going to be hampered if you make the firearms too difficult to get, or too slow to fire, too long to reload, or hold too few rounds. Any firearm that I might reasonably require to protect my home or my person from even a small group of attackers is going to be sufficient to commit a mass shooting.

An assault rifle isn't "reasonably required" to protect a home or person from a group of attackers. A shotgun is less damaging to your property, less potential to shoot through walls so inherently safer, better coverage, and easy to reload. All you really have to do is find cover and stay in one mostly enclosed area, aim at the entrance and you'll be safe.

I mean, unless you want to argue that being incompetent and reckless are traits of a responsible gun owner. This nonargument always makes me laugh. No number of assault rifles will protect you against an actual oppressive government. Bare minimum one could just set three or four humvees each with a 249, two 4s and three 9s, cut the power to your compound, blast floodlights and Hanson's MMMBop 24/7 and just wait for you to surrender.

Edited, Jun 22nd 2016 9:26am by lolgaxe

I want one. In case of squirrel infestation.

Fuzzy tailed tree rats must die.

Granted, the US is a several orders of magnitude different, and ya know, a democracy, but AKs, MANPADs and RPGs have been doing work. Image control is a tougher nut to crack for a regime than direct application of force.

What do you mean "get past us"? Civilian arms are not as an anti-occupation strategy. That's what the military is for.

Just limit the number of bullets a weapon can fire in a given time as well as the capacity between reloads and effectiveness of available ammunition. You don't need to ban weapons outright, you just need to limit their effectiveness for civilian use to something reasonable and less people killy.

Want your gun to look like an assault rifle? Fine, you can look really cool shooting your deer with all 3 rounds that don't explode or pass through the entire body then you can spend a minute reloading directly into the gun because clips are only good for rapid killing sprees and therefore useless for anything but mass murder.

The gun nuts are absolutely right, guns don't kill people, people kill people. So lets not give guns that are effective at killing lots of people to the people when the people aren't allowed to kill other people and those guns have no other reasonable use.

Strangely, the "stare at the floor quietly for seven seconds" strategy hasn't really been working.

I just happen to believe that if you want to defend the continued circulation of a particular arm that someone, somewhere, should have an actual reason that doesn't revolve around fear mongering, constitutional myth, and impossible scenarios. Maybe it's time to be obnoxious and require licensing and registering because there's way too much evidence that people aren't responsible enough to handle it on the honor system.

While I agree that there is a need for increased gun control measures, we don't ban McDonalds, and that kills more people a year than ARs, and nobody has a compelling justification for its existence as anything other than a historical footnote either.

Sure, is football a better comparison?

Well, neither is shooting sports, so...

This.

I don't think I've ever seen a range without an AR-15, but I don't spend that much time in the city.