About America And Guns.

[leibowde84]

What makes you think those were fully automatic?

They were semi-automatic weapons used with a bump stock, for all intents and purposes, became automatic. An automatic weapon is one where the trigger can be pulled once, held, and multiple rounds come out. It doesn't have to start as an automatic weapon.

I think, at the very least, bump stocks should be banned.

 

[Revoltingest]

They were semi-automatic weapons used with a bump stock, for all intents and purposes, became automatic. An automatic weapon is one where the trigger can be pulled once, held, and multiple rounds come out. It doesn't have to start as an automatic weapon.

I think, at the very least, bump stocks should be banned.

"Automatic" is different from the various modifications, in that a single pull & holding of the trigger
yields continuous fire. The "bump stock" simply allows rapid & passive sequential pulling &
releasing of the trigger. This is why they're far less restricted than automatic weapons.....for now.
I won't be surprised if this changes.

Even if I were bent on mayhem, I wouldn't want one of these work-around gimmicks.

 

[leibowde84]

"Automatic" is different from the various modifications, in that a single pull & holding of the trigger
yields continuous fire. The "bump stock" simply allows rapid & passive sequential pulling &
releasing of the trigger. This is why they're far less restricted than automatic weapons.....for now.
I won't be surprised if this changes.

Even if I were bent on mayhem, I wouldn't want one of these work-around gimmicks.

OK. I just don't understand why automatic weapons should be available to the public. There is an obvious reason to ban them, even if it isn't necessary to do so. But, I have yet to hear reasoning to support them being protected weapons.

When it comes down to it, I think you are wrong about the 2nd amendment, but not in the way you probably think.

A militia is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement the regular army in an emergency. Therefore, it seems that, if they were going to be fighting invading nations, they would need the most advanced weapons to fight said armies. As you stated, we can't go by what was available at the time, which I agree with (that was a great point). So, the authors must have intended for the civilian militia to be armed with weapons that could keep up with invading, modern armies, whatever that might necessitate. This would include all conventional weapons (and possibly beyond). This is why I don't think original intent is a reasonable way of limiting the meaning of the constitution. We have access to a great deal more information than the authors of the constitution did.

 

[Revoltingest]

OK. I just don't understand why automatic weapons should be available to the public. There is an obvious reason to ban them, even if it isn't necessary to do so. But, I have yet to hear reasoning to support them being protected weapons.

You've heard it.
You just disagree because you don't see the same intent behind the 2nd Amendment.

When it comes down to it, I think you are wrong about the 2nd amendment, but not in the way you probably think.

I too forgive you for being wrong.

A militia is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement the regular army in an emergency. Therefore, it seems that, if they were going to be fighting invading nations, they would need the most advanced weapons to fight said armies. As you stated, we can't go by what was available at the time, which I agree with (that was a great point). So, the authors must have intended for the civilian militia to be armed with weapons that could keep up with invading, modern armies, whatever that might necessitate. This would include all conventional weapons (and possibly beyond). This is why I don't think original intent is a reasonable way of limiting the meaning of the constitution. We have access to a great deal more information than the authors of the constitution did.

There is indeed a question of how far the right goes. So I look at what the authors would've
seen in possession of the individuals in the militia. They had rifles, but not cannons.

 

[leibowde84]

You've heard it.
You just disagree because you don't see the same intent behind the 2nd Amendment.

So, can you explain why automatic weapons are necessary?

There is indeed a question of how far the right goes. So I look at what the authors would've
seen in possession of the individuals in the militia. They had rifles, but not cannons.

How do you know they didn't have cannons? Obviously they wouldn't keep them at their houses, as they were kept in strategic places, but maybe the town had their own, purchased by citizens or something, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, can you explain why automatic weapons are necessary?

In a war, they are useful for suppressive fire.

How do you know they didn't have cannons?

Cannons were far far too expensive for the average Ethan & Nathan.

Obviously they wouldn't keep them at their houses, as they were kept in strategic places, but maybe the town had their own, purchased by citizens or something, right?

If you're trying to argue that cannons are covered by the 2nd, I'm willing to listen.....or read.

 

[leibowde84]

In a war, they are useful for suppressive fire.

Cannons were far far too expensive for the average Ethan & Nathan.

If you're trying to argue that cannons are covered by the 2nd, I'm willing to listen.....or read.

I think, as long as an organized militia is necessary for the security of the country (which, I would argue it isn't anymore), it seems that canons would be covered, as the whole point was to arm the militia to help our army fight a war. Or, do you think I've got that wrong?

 

[esmith]

What is the harm of outlawing automatic weapons though? What do we lose? I understand that some people who like to shoot/collect guns might be put out, but that is a miniscule price to pay to get some of these weapons off the street.

Obviously, gun control will not and should not be expected to cure the problem completely. Anyone who claims that is off their rocker. But, if it even helps the problem a little bit, it seems worth it. Do you agree?

Why should automatic weapons be illegal? Can you give me a honest appraisal of why?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think, as long as an organized militia is necessary for the security of the country (which, I would argue it isn't anymore), it seems that canons would be covered, as the whole point was to arm the militia to help our army fight a war. Or, do you think I've got that wrong?

It's debatable.
I just don't see cannons as protected (for reasons already given).

 

[leibowde84]

Why should automatic weapons be illegal? Can you give me a honest appraisal of why?

When certain firearms are made illegal, they become less readily available and far more expensive. Thus, they will be harder for criminals and bad actors to attain on the black market. Obviously, no one can see the future, so no one knows how many bad actors will try to get automatic weapons in the future. But, since we don't really lose anything by outlawing them, what's the harm?

 

[esmith]

When certain firearms are made illegal, they become less readily available and far more expensive. Thus, they will be harder for criminals and bad actors to attain on the black market. Obviously, no one can see the future, so no one knows how many bad actors will try to get automatic weapons in the future. But, since we don't really lose anything by outlawing them, what's the harm?

Automatic weapons now are very expensive, starting at around $16,000.00. In addition, a person who is not legal allowed to own a firearm can purchase one "off the street" at a price below market price. Now there is not any hard facts, that I can find, to support this; however one only has to look at the price of stolen items vs retail price to correlate the assumption.
And what do we lose by allowing them?

 

[leibowde84]

Automatic weapons now are very expensive, starting at around $16,000.00. In addition, a person who is not legal allowed to own a firearm can purchase one "off the street" at a price below market price. Now there is not any hard facts, that I can find, to support this; however one only has to look at the price of stolen items vs retail price to correlate the assumption.
And what do we lose by allowing them?

Weapons on the black market are far more expensive than market price. You are comparing apples and oranges if you are looking at stolen products that aren't firearms.

This should be obvious, as people get firearms off the black market to avoid being registered. You don't get arrested for having an unregistered TV. But, you 100% get charged for owning a gun that is unregistered.

This article proves my point. It shows that firearms on the black market are substantially more expensive than legally purchased firearms (I'm sorry, but this is just common sense): https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/08/12/inside-the-black-market-for-guns/#2cb83517181e

“How about with how much handguns go for on the black market?”

Agent Mulham said, “Well, a quality pistol like a Glock might go for double or triple retail. Lower-quality guns, however, are often worth only $100 or $200 more than retail.”

 

[esmith]

Weapons on the black market are far more expensive than market price. You are comparing apples and oranges if you are looking at stolen products that aren't firearms.

This should be obvious, as people get firearms off the black market to avoid being registered. You don't get arrested for having an unregistered TV. But, you 100% get charged for owning a gun that is unregistered.

Firearms are not required to be registered under Federal law except for certain firearms like fully automatic ones.

 

[leibowde84]

Firearms are not required to be registered under Federal law except for certain firearms like fully automatic ones.

Nevertheless, you were wrong. Can you now admit that black market firearms are far more expensive than legally obtained firearms? I provided proof, and I am willing to provide more if you need it. You have not provided any proof validating your claim that they are cheaper. If you still believe that, can you?

 

[esmith]

Nevertheless, you were wrong. Can you now admit that black market firearms are far more expensive than legally obtained firearms? I provided proof, and I am willing to provide more if you need it. You have not provided any proof validating your claim that they are cheaper. If you still believe that, can you?

Yes black market firearms are more expensive, however I was not referring to those transactions. What I was putting forth was the idea of someone stealing a firearm from someone then selling it on the "street corner". I think that this is two different cases. And yes I agree that black market sales are the most common. So that said yes the majority of firearms obtained illegally sell for more than retail

 

[leibowde84]

Yes black market firearms are more expensive, however I was not referring to those transactions. What I was putting forth was the idea of someone stealing a firearm from someone then selling it on the "street corner". I think that this is two different cases. And yes I agree that black market sales are the most common. So that said yes the majority of firearms obtained illegally sell for more than retail

That is my point. Making automatic weapons illegal will make them harder to get on the black market. And, gun owners have to be responsible and keep their guns in a secure spot like a safe so they aren't stolen. That is on them.

 

[PureX]

That is my point. Making automatic weapons illegal will make them harder to get on the black market. And, gun owners have to be responsible and keep their guns in a secure spot like a safe so they aren't stolen. That is on them.

More importantly than making them harder and more expensive to get, it makes them illegal to possess. Meaning that when discovered, they will be taken, and destroyed, and the person in possession of them will be punished. This would make a huge difference in the number of these weapons out there. AND in the willingness to carry them around in cars, and show them off to buddies, and brag about them in bars, and so on. Having them just wouldn't be any 'fun' anymore.

 

[PureX]

Why should automatic weapons be illegal? Can you give me a honest appraisal of why?

Because they are insanely dangerous to the general pubic, and because no citizen in this country has any practical need for one.

 

[esmith]

Because they are insanely dangerous to the general pubic, and because no citizen in this country has any practical need for one.

I am going to have to restrain myself on writing a humorous comment to you statement..... NAH I got to do it. You got something besides firearms on your mind?


However to be serious
Please explain your reasoning behind the corrected statement "insanely dangerous to the general public"

 

[PureX]

Please explain your reasoning behind the corrected statement "insanely dangerous to the general public"

They are machines that have been designed and engineered for the singular purpose of killing as many humans as quickly and easily as possible. How is it that you can't see these machines as being "insanely dangerous to the general public"?