Are these 'infringements'?

your first sentence doesn't make sense. Yes everybody wants restrictions on illegal guns that's why it's illegal.

Why do you think the public needs to be protected from gun owners you know there's over a hundred million of us in society. And it doesn't matter if you think a weapon looks like something that belongs on the battlefield (all weapons ever conceived or ever to be conceived are battlefield weapons) for you arbitrarily pick a number of rounds that can be in the magazine and say that's too many.

People can still murder you with a single shot rifle.

You protect the public by enforcing laws against criminals. Also putting criminals in prison for breaking certain law.

 

All laws are made with a claimed purpose. Laws against abortion are made with the claimed purpose of protecting the unborn from being killed. Whether that purpose justifies the restriction of the choice depends on one of two things- the popularity of the restriction or the protection of the choice as a right. Since it isnt a right (in the legal sense) it is instead subject to popular opinion.

It seems you are avoiding the point by trying to predicate whether something is a right on whether restricting it is done with a purpose.That is folly, as there will always be some purpose cited to justify restricting people with more 'regulations', especially if we allow even protected rights to be restricted if only someone can cite a purpose... if thats all thats needed, then we have no rights, merely privledges awaiting a purpose to infringe on them all.

 

Excellent counterargument, and by the way, gun owner and gun nut are not the same thing.

Okay, but saying it's a civilian copy of an M4 is easier.


(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
   1. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
   2. A thumbhole stock.
   3. A folding or telescoping stock.
   4. A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
   5. A flash suppressor.
   6. A forward pistol grip.
2. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
3. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
4. A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
   1. A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
   2. (B) A second handgrip.
   3. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
   4. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
5. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
6. A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
   1. A folding or telescoping stock.
   2. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
7. A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
8. Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
   1. "Assault weapon" does not include any antique firearm.
   2. The following definitions shall apply under this section:
      1. "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
      2. "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
      3. "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.

My first sentence makes perfect sense, gun nuts don't want any restrictions. They call it harassment and it leads to subjugation.
You brought up assault weapons and that their designation is arbitrary, that is a separate issue from protecting the public from illegal availability and gun use. Gun owners are members of society and many of them do not want to participate in protecting the health and safety of society, they are called gun nuts.

Again, ALL rights have restrictions. As I demonstrated with First Amendment restrictions, does that right violate the rights of others, does that right endanger public health and safety then it needs restrictions. Those are legitimate restrictions and hardly "folly". I said those restrictions are subjective cost/benefit decisions but that doesn't mean they are not valid. If the restrictions, like many of yours in the OP, do not pass the purpose of the law, by my definition, then they are infringements.

Gun nuts do not care that a right infringes on the rights of others or that it endangers public health and safety. They are motivated by fear and self interest.

 

1) how does owning something infringe on the rights of the cowardly?
2) what firearms are protected by the second amendment

 

like I said arbitrary.

they don't want any restrictions intended only to harass them. And that's what a lot of proposed restrictions are.

they are the only ones that can protect the society. What are you going to do stand in the way and die and hope enough of you pile up and form a wall of corpses

You must have weapons in order to protect society.

 

Why do you consider self defense to be motivated by 'fear and self interest'? Is that different from people who fear getting shot by legal gun owners?

 

exactly, gun banners seem to think that we should tolerate harassing restrictions for no other reason that they want to harass us

 

Well you don't understand our two day waiting period well stop gang bangers.

 

just like registration even though the supreme court has ruled that you cannot prosecute someone who is a felon for refusing to register a firearm

 

1) It depends on what that is something? Are you keeping a lion in the back yard?
If by the "cowardly" you mean normal people and that something is a firearm, it doesn't, if legally obtained.

2) Currently, all are.

Your denial of reality is arbitrary.

Restrictions only meant to harass are infringements. Which restrictions are harassment?

Then it is off to paranoid conspiracy land nonsense.

You are totaly mischaracterizing what I wrote and I'm sure it was unintentional. What I said was "gun nuts" are motivated by fear and self interest. To prove it just look at the statements of our friends Turtledude and Polydectes.

Most normal people do not walk around with a fear of getting shot by anyone.

 

the only people I see exhibiting fear are leftists who fear how gun owners vote

 

Your denial of reality seems psychological

Restrictions based on arbitrary classifications are harassment.

Historical facts are not a conspiracy

Unless you are denying history.

 

What distinguishes a 'gun nut' from other gun owners and gun rights proponents?

 

Refusal to look at researched facts

 

I think I've made it clear what "gun nuts" are and we have two fine examples here. If you still don't get it, I can explain further but I would be repeating myself. "Gun owners" on the other hand are normal people, who want to keep society safe and are not paranoid conspiracy theorists. 8 out of 10 want universal background checks, most want to raise the legal age to 21 and are for red flag laws. Only 40% of guns are sold through an FFL.

 

Those numbers appear skewed. Whats your source?

We've spent ~$70M administering UBCs in my state since passing the law, yet our murder by shooting rate has doubled in the same timeframe and our overall gun violence rate has increased proportionately with the national average. 2/3 of it is with guns bought in-state, same as before the UBCs. By no metric is it a success and by any metric it is a waste of money. Why would anyone want more of that?

Should the legal age for driving be increased to 21 as well? The fatal crash rate per miles driven for 16- to 19 year-olds is nearly three times the rate for drivers ages 20 and over.

Red flag laws are a bandaid for an understaffed legal system. Domestic violence offenders should be prosecuted before they can buy a gun if you really want to protect people from them. Making it illegal for them to get a gun while they wait for trial doesnt prevent them from committing more violence.

 

References? Here, here and here

So you consider the list of things your fellow gun owners are for, infringements? That is, they are there with no purpose other than "harassing" gun owners. You are pushing the needle into gun nut territory.
What gun laws are you behind that would protect the public and prevent the illegal transfer of weapons?

 

I support the same laws restricting weapons as those restricting alcohol. Alcohol as an example directly accounts for the same amount of death as murder by shooting, and alcohol related illness accounts for far more death than suicide by shooting. So I see no reason to enact more laws restricting guns than are sufficient to restrict alcohol. Alcohol abuse has been on a signifigant rise lately (since lockdowns), even worse than the rise in gun violence. Why arent the same people that call for more 'gun safety laws' similarly demanding more 'alcohol safety laws'?

 

If Democrats/leftists perceived most drinkers and most of the industrial lobbying groups in favor of "spirits" being supports of the GOP, I expect many of them would start sounding like Carrie Nation.

 

Okay, no you've done it, declarting yes, I am a gun nut. So you concede 21 would be the legal age to imbibe in guns while throwing out background checks completely. Or is it the legal age to buy whisky would be 18 after a background check? A lethal weapon and alcohol are equal and should be equally restricted?

 

We should probably increase the age of adulthood to 21 across the board. That would make the most scientific sense. The average human brain is not fully developed at 18, which is why alcohol is harmful for pre-21, it changes how the brain develops. However, then the age of military service would be pushed back to 21 as well, and because the average human brain is fully developed at 21, that would severely decrease the ability of the military to train people for war. Military training can change how the brain develops as well... which has a lot to do with why the age of legal adult is 18 instead of 21.

I do not support making the age to purchase a firearm 21 yet allowing 18 year olds to shoot, kill and die for their country in war. That is too much nonsense of law. Those ages should be the same. I think they both should be 21, but if one has to be 18, then so should the other.

 

same with voting, contracting, standing in front of adult criminal courts, and marrying without permission

 

Marriages would be a lot more successful if they were prohibited before , like, 30. But that would further compromise the 2.1 children average needed to float a modern economy.

 

well I got married at 34, only one kid-slacker for sure.

 

Yes, change the subject.
The difference between an armed 18 year old civilian and an 18 year old soldier.......one has firearm training and its use is supervised, and the other....well don't cut him off in traffic.