Law Gun and Gun Control News/Discussion

[djacobox372]

They don't have to be experts. But a lack of basic knowledge is just clown world. "SaFetY!!!"

Assault weapon bans are as stupid as the morons that claim an AR or AK style gun isn't an assault weapon. They are assault weapons in that they were purposely designed for that purpose (rather than sporting, personal defense, etc.). Select fire is a feature, but it's hardly the end-all be all.

However the 2nd amendment isn't about sporting or personal defense, it's about waging war against those who would threaten our free state. So why in the hell would we ban the weapons specifically designed for the purpose the 2nd amendment prescribes?

 

[spamking]

You said it. Why is the gun debate special or different than any other political issue? Should politicians be held to a higher standards when they discuss guns?

It should really be self-explanatory. If you're going to push for further infringements on a right you had better know what you're discussing.

If this response isn't sufficient for you . . . sorry. I've provided enough info for you to work it out on your own.

 

[Belaya Smert]

Yeah but our elected representative debate all kinds of stuff they know nothing about like health insurance, terriorist states and foreign aid.

Your logic seems to say representatives should not talk about guns because they don't know enough but you could apply this to just about every subject they debate.

You like guns, no? This seems why you want to hang your hat on this.

I think most of the population isn’t versed on the vast majority of subjects being debated. Guns however have an educated and engaged populous. A lot harder to lie and coerce the informed voter when they know more than the elected official spouting propaganda and asking for trust n government to “make it better”.

 

[jlagman]

Can you imagine any other discussion where someone insists that they don't need to be educated on the subject in order to discuss it and have their opinions shape law and policy.

 

[panamaican]

Can you imagine any other discussion where someone makes the argument that they don't need to be educated on the subject in order to discuss it and have their opinions shape law and policy.

Pretty much most subjects. Most people go with how they feel about it, only a few bother being properly educated on something. To provide an other side of the aisle example -- look at the CRT debate. very few people there claim that they need to be educated on the subject in order to shape education policy. But that's just an example I'm using because it's in the news, not because it's unique in any particular way, we could pick tons of examples.

 

[HockeyBjj]

On thread topic instead of just being pissy to other posters:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory...s-challenge-connecticut-firearms-ban-90772892

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year, gun rights groups and firearms owners have launched another attempt to overturn Connecticut's ban on certain semiautomatic rifles that was enacted in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

A new lawsuit was filed Thursday in federal court by three gun owners, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and the Second Amendment Foundation. They are seeking to overturn the state prohibition on what they call “modern sporting arms” such as AR-15-style rifles like the one used to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at the Newtown school in 2012.

“We all deserve to live in safe communities, but denying ownership of the most commonly owned firearms in the country is not the way to achieve it," Holly Sullivan, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, said in a statement.

“The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision ... has opened the door to this challenge, and we believe Connecticut will be hard pressed to prove its statutes are constitutional,” she said.

State officials vowed to defend the 2013 gun laws.

___________________________________________

If this makes it all the way to the Supreme court, and I believe it should if they have the funding for it, it will be very interesting if the current supreme court takes up that case as there's no other aspect of precedent to hide behind with how Connecticut's law is written. SC will have to state weather modern semi-auto rifles are protected by the 2nd amendment or not.

Connecticut has one of if not the strictest law against semi-auto rifles. States like California try to avoid banning the gun itself in fear of law being tossed out for being unconstitutional, so they try to ban enough features of the semi- auto rifle that the gun becomes impractical to use. Connecticut names specific guns and manufacturers that are illegal to own. Also magazines over 10 rounds are illegal to own unless registered in Connecticut. A person has to get special limited magazines for standard sized pistols to not be considered high capacity.

 

[My Spot]

On thread topic instead of just being pissy to other posters:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory...s-challenge-connecticut-firearms-ban-90772892

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year, gun rights groups and firearms owners have launched another attempt to overturn Connecticut's ban on certain semiautomatic rifles that was enacted in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

A new lawsuit was filed Thursday in federal court by three gun owners, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and the Second Amendment Foundation. They are seeking to overturn the state prohibition on what they call “modern sporting arms” such as AR-15-style rifles like the one used to kill 20 first-graders and six educators at the Newtown school in 2012.

“We all deserve to live in safe communities, but denying ownership of the most commonly owned firearms in the country is not the way to achieve it," Holly Sullivan, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, said in a statement.

“The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision ... has opened the door to this challenge, and we believe Connecticut will be hard pressed to prove its statutes are constitutional,” she said.

State officials vowed to defend the 2013 gun laws.

___________________________________________

If this makes it all the way to the Supreme court, and I believe it should if they have the funding for it, it will be very interesting if the current supreme court takes up that case as there's no other aspect of precedent to hide behind with how Connecticut's law is written. SC will have to state weather modern semi-auto rifles are protected by the 2nd amendment or not.

Connecticut has one of if not the strictest law against semi-auto rifles. States like California try to avoid banning the gun itself in fear of law being tossed out for being unconstitutional, so they try to ban enough features of the semi- auto rifle that the gun becomes impractical to use. Connecticut names specific guns and manufacturers that are illegal to own. Also magazines over 10 rounds are illegal to own unless registered in Connecticut. A person has to get special limited magazines for standard sized pistols to not be considered high capacity.

I wonder how much money the state will waste defending this since you can still buy AR15s in CT anyhow.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/04/08/big-3-east-ct-legal-troy-firearm-identifies-as-other/

 

[HomeCheese]

I think most of the population isn’t versed on the vast majority of subjects being debated. Guns however have an educated and engaged populous. A lot harder to lie and coerce the informed voter when they know more than the elected official spouting propaganda and asking for trust n government to “make it better”.

Okay but look at it from a different perspective. The fact that some people equate knowledge of firearm to being educated and engaged sort of sums up the problem. Knowing the minor details and differences of a particular rifle compared to another doesn't really make a difference when you are talking about public safety.

For example, you don't need to be an expert to know high capacity mags lead to greater casualties in mass shooter events. How many oil you gun huggers know that most mass shooter events are a result of domestic violence. Or that something like 86% of murders using a gun are men.

Further, do any of you know enough about firearms to be hired as an expert witness at a trial? Unless you are an expert you are just another guy that likes to shoot on the weekend.

 

[Belaya Smert]

Okay but look at it from a different perspective. The fact that some people equate knowledge of firearm to being educated and engaged sort of sums up the problem. Knowing the minor details and differences of a particular rifle compared to another doesn't really make a difference when you are talking about public safety.

For example, you don't need to be an expert to know high capacity mags lead to greater casualties in mass shooter events. How many oil you gun huggers know that most mass shooter events are a result of domestic violence. Or that something like 86% of murders using a gun are men.

Further, do any of you know enough about firearms to be hired as an expert witness at a trial? Unless you are an expert you are just another guy that likes to shoot on the weekend.

Did you happen to look into any of the average age, socio economic, or ethnic percentages of the groups that perpetrate these crimes? You may deem the CDC to be racist if so. Inner city, drug and gang affiliation involving male POC between 17-25. Why only focus on mass shooting when these take up a very small portion of the homicides committed with firearms. Is it because these crimes actually get news coverage? The last line of your post would seemingly invalidate your own stance as you yourself are “no expert”. Politicians have willfully used misinformation and misidentification to placate to the fear mentality. All while not bothering to point out the places that they have adopted most if not all of what is being proposed as “common sense gun control” have failed categorically. If you can put your faith in the very people that created the areas in this country most effected by gun violence with more of the same policy then you are far more trusting an individual or just want to see the world burn. At this point it would be immaterial if you refer to an AR-15 as an assault rifle or not. Not being able to cherry pick your stats sucks because it puts a magnifying glass up to the inequality in this world and we can’t blame that on the “evil racist white gun owner” we hear all about these days.

 

[HomeCheese]

Did you happen to look into any of the average age, socio economic, or ethnic percentages of the groups that perpetrate these crimes? You may deem the CDC to be racist if so. Inner city, drug and gang affiliation involving male POC between 17-25. Why only focus on mass shooting when these take up a very small portion of the homicides committed with firearms. Is it because these crimes actually get news coverage? The last line of your post would seemingly invalidate your own stance as you yourself are “no expert”. Politicians have willfully used misinformation and misidentification to placate to the fear mentality. All while not bothering to point out the places that they have adopted most if not all of what is being proposed as “common sense gun control” have failed categorically. If you can put your faith in the very people that created the areas in this country most effected by gun violence with more of the same policy then you are far more trusting an individual or just want to see the world burn. At this point it would be immaterial if you refer to an AR-15 as an assault rifle or not. Not being able to cherry pick your stats sucks because it puts a magnifying glass up to the inequality in this world and we can’t blame that on the “evil racist white gun owner” we hear all about these days.

Oh wait, it's a race issue to you?

Simply pointing out facts about high capacity mags and mass shootings largely resulting from domestic violence isn't cherry picking data. I mean, if the gun huggers won't even give up high capacity mags then there is no reasoning with them.

The logic of this thread would suggest you don't know enough about crime and it's causes to be allowed to discuss it.

 

[Belaya Smert]

Oh wait, it's a race issue to you?

Simply pointing out facts about high capacity mags and mass shootings largely resulting from domestic violence isn't cherry picking data. I mean, if the gun huggers won't even give up high capacity mags then there is no reasoning with them.

The logic of this thread would suggest you don't know enough about crime and it's causes to be allowed to discuss it.

I’m quoting the statistics derived from the CDC data related to firearms being a public health issue and receiving funding as such.
I assumed you cared about saving lives and didn’t care about fringe gun control issues that almost universally only effect Law abiding gun owners. They wont follow the murder laws but will follow laws like magazine capacity that you view as pun intended a magic bullet to fix a complex issue you have not the slightest interest in actually understanding of. You found one statistic and feel there is a cause and effect that means we should limit magazine capacity. You don’t care about saving lives you’re afraid of people that own AR-15’s and feel guilty from watching the news and not being able to do anything to make it better. So here we are hurling insults rather than having an honest conversation about making people safer in this country. All those school shooters have more in common than capital punishment.

 

[HomeCheese]

I’m quoting the statistics derived from the CDC data related to firearms being a public health issue and receiving funding as such.
I assumed you cared about saving lives and didn’t care about fringe gun control issues that almost universally only effect Law abiding gun owners. They wont follow the murder laws but will follow laws like magazine capacity that you view as pun intended a magic bullet to fix a complex issue you have not the slightest interest in actually understanding of. You found one statistic and feel there is a cause and effect that means we should limit magazine capacity. You don’t care about saving lives you’re afraid of people that own AR-15’s and feel guilty from watching the news and not being able to do anything to make it better. So here we are hurling insults rather than having an honest conversation about making people safer in this country. All those school shooters have more in common than capital punishment.

This is exactly why the gun huggers come across as totally unreasonable. If you can't even agree to give up high capacity mags then what point would it be to discuss the issue with you?

Would your life be any worse if they banned high capacity mags? Would it make you feel like a victim?

 

[fedorthegoat777]

These "gun control" scum really boil my blood.

Then again, I bought 4 new handguns this month (IWI Masada 9mm, Canik TP9 Elite SC 9mm, Taurus GX4 9mm, and Taurus Raging Bull .44 Magnum), and I plan on buying 2 more before the end of the month (Walther PDP 9mm and Girsan, MC1911 9mm). They've been on my wish list all year, had some extra money hit this month and decided to treat myself.

Nice. Going heavy on the handguns? Got to get some rifles and a shotgun so they don't get lonely.
I picked up a muzzleloader .50 cal recently, haven't shot it yet though.

 

[fedorthegoat777]

Biden obviously wants your guns.

I think people will finally fight back over this and agree Uncle Sam is now our enemy.

I have been to the Bible Belt, and other areas. In the deep South, guns are a religion. Good luck getting them.

All guns can be assault weapons.

Final thought: One of the fits things Hitler did when he got power was to remove the guns. "Hunting accidents"

 

[jlagman]

This is exactly why the gun huggers come across as totally unreasonable. If you can't even agree to give up high capacity mags then what point would it be to discuss the issue with you?

Would your life be any worse if they banned high capacity mags? Would it make you feel like a victim?

If "high capacity mags" were such a "reasonable compromise" then the change should come from the top down; what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

BTW, what if someone just brings a bunch of guns to commit a mass shooting?

 

[HomeCheese]

If "high capacity mags" were such a "reasonable compromise" then the change should come from the top down; what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

BTW, what if someone just brings a bunch of guns to commit a mass shooting?

What does "change should come from the top down" mean????

How would your life be affected in any way if high capacity mags were banned?

 

[jlagman]

What does "change should come from the top down" mean????

How would your life be affected in any way if high capacity mags were banned?

Easy, if they expect the citizenry to compromise their ability to defend themselves, then lead by example; ban "high capacity" magazines for everyone.

That still doesn't address the possibility of someone carrying two or more guns in a reduced capacity environment, like Virginia Tech.

 

[oldshadow]

What does "change should come from the top down" mean????

How would your life be affected in any way if high capacity mags were banned?

What is "high capacity" I think 50 rounds is about the right number. Say we have extra requirements for mags 50 rounds and above. Sounds like a good compromise to me.

 

[HomeCheese]

What is "high capacity" I think 50 rounds is about the right number. Say we have extra requirements for mags 50 rounds and above. Sounds like a good compromise to me.

To the majority of people this hardly seems like a compromise. What on earth do you need a 50 round clip for?

 

[jlagman]

LOL, there's that buzzword, "compromise" again, I think you meant concession. That said, if you want actual compromise, bring something to trade; what are you willing to exchange for (insert gun control policy here)?