But… you just did it!
Spurious bullshit mate. Pure sophistry.
Everyone understands this.
What do the think was the intent of the legislation that banned automatic weapons? Do you think they gave a shit about if it were the trigger vs the stock, or do you think maybe they were concerned about the rounds per minute?
I mean, come on. Bring something a little better than this elementary school gotcha bullshit. It’s a little insulting to everyone here.
Yeah. Or more realistic, let’s allow them cartridges. Let the evil children play with AR-15-shaped guns with bolt action. They’ll still kill a few hundred people a year, but at least it won’t be a hundred at a time.
Don’t forget flintlock pistols for close combat and lawn cannons for taking out approaching SWAT vehicles.
I’ll see you at the militia meeting. Bring some extra rations of hardtack and ale, it’s going to be a long weekend.
You’ll see me at the militia meeting as soon as we have a well regulated militia, as the constitution dictates.
The only organization I can think of that comes even close is the National Guard. So I suppose if you are an active member of the National Guard in your state you get the flintlock.
The 2nd Amendment, of course, does not mention sport shooting, self defense, hobby collecting or reselling. None of that is protected by the 2nd. Which the scumbag liars at the NRA ignore all the time.
This is an insane viewpoint that will never succeed.
This is also insane. Firing a magazine in less than 2 seconds is not semi-automatic. It’s automatic by a different means.
The difficulty is that the action of a “bump stock” can be simulated with something as simple as a loop of rope or the gun sling itself. The manufactured stocks can certainly be banned, but physics will still allow improvised simple machines plus semi-auto weapons.
May I ask what’s so insane about it? Why do civilians need to be in possession of the latest, greatest gun technology again?
Some thoughts to consider before you answer:
-
The way to really keep the government in check is to realize that if POTUS or a chain of command gave an illegal order, the military is made up of Americans too. No one is going to roll tanks into Cleveland.
-
If the government did go power crazy for some reason, a few people with bolt action long guns with scopes would make them think twice about any military presence. So would throngs of angry protesters. We don’t need the fight the government symmetrically. This is why people don’t need AT guns and rockets.
-
How would anyone’s life be materially changed if all semi automatic weapons were banned?
-
Disarmament of the American populace would certainly coincide with disarmament of the police. They could call in armed specialized backup if needed, like every other western country.
Technology from 1903 = latest and greatest tech.
Gotcha.
You know I’ve always wondered about this. If this is the militia that we would fall back on to overthrow usurpers to our nation, they are so in step with our military that I’m not really sure they would be the assistance we could count on.
So, some person decided to say fuck it and become a dictator. Step one would be getting full control of the military. The national guard are all reservists of active military branches. Where does that leave us?
In ponyland, rather than 2nd Amendment Fetishist land, would not a restriction of all civilian firearms to shotguns, bolt-action rifles, and revolvers, still fulfill the needs for hunting, target shooting, and personal defense? (Concealed carry is a separate question which I’m not sure on, but the NRA’s rapacious effort to normalize it terrorizes hell out of me.)
That seems to me a reasonable way to go. (In ponyland. In the actual U.S., we’re fucked.)
I guess you could argue that such weapons couldn’t be used for a ‘well regulated militia’ but then we’re getting right into the anachronism of the original amendment text. We have an incredibly competent standing army. We don’t need ‘well regulated militias.’ Unless you’re talking about militias formed to overthrow the government. Which I don’t think the 2nd amendment was supposed to protect. But I’m sure 2A fetishists will argue otherwise on that point. (See above, re: fucked.)
As for the enthusiast argument (I want the neatest and latest and greatest and don’t kill my hobby), that no longer holds the slightest weight for me. Guns are not toys: they are machines designed to kill. Find some other goddamned hobby.
Those words would chill the blood of every one of the Founding Fathers.
We were never supposed to have a standing army, the very existence of such a thing was seen as anathema to a free nation.
Militia at the time meant every able-bodied male and they were the purview of the states, never the Federal government.
Yeah, things were way different at the tail end of the 18th century. Perhaps we could revise some laws to keep up with the times.
In a lot of ways they still seem like they knew what they were talking about, he says as his country passes their 16th year of never-ending war and plans to start a new one.
I get that, but the situation is very different. For one thing, the idea of a loose confederation of states was put paid to in 1861-65. Power for national defense is centralized in the Federal Government.
Also, I mean, as much as your blood is chilled, what do you propose? Dissolving the U.S. Army and replacing it with 50 militias? Is that in the best interest of the country?
It’s this kind of historical bric a brac that is so frustrating. Every other developed country gets to have sane gun policy, except for us, because, I guess, “the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Except the only blood being shed is that of innocent churchgoers, concert goers, schoolchildren, etc.
There is a potential hazard in having a powerful army and a (relatively) unarmed civilian population, but it’s a hazard shared by Australia, England, Canada, France, Germany, etc., etc., etc. I’d be willing to share that hazard. And if, on the other hand, you wish to make rag-tag fugitive militias legitimately able to oppose that standing army, then you need to make civilians able to own much more powerful weapons, which means our gun laws aren’t lax enough.
Which I’m sure would give Wayne LaPierre the erection of his lifetime, but I won’t go down that road.
Is the solution to overthrow the U.S. by force of arms, or to vote the bums out?
The very people arguing for more gun liberties are the same ones who go on and on about ‘supporting the troops’ and want every foreign policy decision to be made unilaterally and on the basis of aggression and force.
Meanwhile, the liberal snowflakes like me would like to end America’s enormous military budget and history of endless foreign engagements by using the franchise.
Sure, I’m not saying we should throw out the Constitution or anything. But this is 2017, we have a standing army. And our military has aircraft carriers, supersonic jets, Abrams tanks, and drones that can drop a hellfire on your house. AR-15s and bump stocks don’t mean shit if things ever took that kind of turn.
They sure are good at fucking mowing down children at elementary schools and spraying lead into concert-goers, though.
The solution was to never let the government get that much power in the first place, but we fucked the dog on that one despite Eisenhower warning us explicitly about it.
As far as stupid people. They’re stupid. It doesn’t mean we start throwing out rights because they misuse them. Ideally we’d vote for better people, but since our political system is basically unsalvageable at this point…
How do you end that sentence? Genuinely curious.