Gun Control needs to be instituted

Sorry. Typo.
-- 2022 --
636 mass shootings, 660 deaths.
8 mass shootings involved semi-automatic rifles, with 54 deaths.
Sources: See my sig.

This claim is false.

This claim is false.

 

The right to keep and bear arms is not subject to a means-end test.
The enshrinement of certain rights by the constitution - necessarily and intentionally - takes certain policy choices off the table.

 

what you are seeing is this scenario over and over and over. Leftists support gun control mainly because they see gun rights advocates and gun owners whose voting patterns reflect second amendment priorities-as the enemy of most leftwing agendas. As National Review noted several years ago-gun owners are seen as a totem for White Christian Conservative, upper middle class males-the enemy of everything from abortion on demand to LBQTXYZ sexual activism. Gun control is designed to punish that enemy. And when the lefties who advocate gun bans or stupid restrictions as a weapon against their political enemies, and are then questioned about their support of gun bans, they try to justify them with issues they don't really care about -ie controlling criminals. So naturally, their arguments in support of the facade tend to be specious or factually bereft

 

Recently saw a stat that if yoo removed the top Democrat controlled cities from the stats.. i.e. chicago, detroit LA .. etc.. and note; they all have strict gun control laws; the US would fall from 3rd in the world for death per capita by guns to 184th of 193 nations.

 

one percent of the counties cause over 40% of the murders. white Americans-who have the highest percentage of legal gun ownership of any major group in the world, have violent crime rates similar to whites living in nanny states with strict victim disarmament laws

 

The state cannot obtain and maintain a monopoly on force, so long as the citizenry remains armed.
Thus, gun control.

 

leftist authoritarians don't want armed obstacles in the way of a control freak state

 

The word "control" is there for a reason.

 

I am pointing out that your claims are completely untrue. No semi-auto-only weapon is ever an assault weapon.

That is not a fact. That is a falsehood. No semi-auto-only weapon is ever an assault weapon.

I do not "realize" falsehoods. So no, I do not "realize" that particular falsehood.

I do not challenge the fact that the law includes definitions.

I merely note the additional fact that those definitions are fraudulent.

My contention is not false. Everything that I said is 100% true.

That is incorrect. That is not the truth. No semi-auto-only weapon is ever an assault weapon.

The thing about fraudulent definitions is, they don't count.

That definition is fraudulent.

That means it isn't true.

 

I'll assert that.

The only reason why gun banners are trying to ban these weapons is because they have been allowed to arbitrarily and inaccurately mislabel them as assault weapons.

And if the gun banners are allowed to ban these weapons, they will go on to arbitrarily and inaccurately mislabel even more weapons as assault weapons and then work to ban those as well.

"That a claim is untrue" seems to be relevant.

And any claim that "assault weapons are designed for massacring civilians" is very much untrue.

Again, no assault weapon that is (or was ever) legally owned by an American civilian has ever been used to commit a crime.

 

Not if the law is about pistol grips and flash suppressors, or about guns that are merely named AR-15.

 

People can come up with an actual argument that private ownership of atomic bombs would be harmful to society.

No one has ever come up with an argument why private ownership of AR-15s would ever be harmful to society.

No chance whatsoever.

The reason why the police switched from shotguns to rifles is because sometimes criminals wear body armor.

You should accept it, because the fact that the police use them for self defense shows that such weapons are appropriate for self defense.

IF.

Note that "civilian possession of these guns" was not the reason why the police started using them.

But...

If you think that the only reason why the police use them is because civilians have them, then you should be OK with banning them from the police at the same time you ban them from civilians.

 

Police ARE civilians.

 

Keep trying to tell you gun banners... maybe a picture will help

 

And how many of them were possessed legally by the individual?

Yes, gangbangers and the like love their automatic weapons. But I can't think of a single case where the perp that used one had the legal right to own it.

Kinda pointless to even mention weapons that are already banned for the majority of the population.

 

It depends on the context. Compared to the military the police are civilians.

But the term civilian can also be used to designate someone who isn't the police.

 

In some countries like the US, cops and firefighters like to use the colloquialism “civilian” to refer to other citizens. But in the context of the 2A (gun rights) anyone who is a non combatant is a civilian.

I’m a sworn member of a fire department. But I don’t consider myself a non civilian. Seems just over the top egotistical to me.

As US civilian law enforcement militarizes and becomes more authoritarian there is more acceptance of referring to them as non civilian. But they are enforcing civil laws, are (supposed to be) non combatants, and are originally intended to serve and protect.

If we have such a messed up society we need civil law enforcement to be classified as combatants, we have a problem.

I know many disagree and want authoritative law enforcement. It’s a bit subjective I suppose.

 

Cool about your firefighter experience. I'm no firefighter but I was on staff (Plans and Integration Officer) with 1,500 civilian firefighters we had in Iraq 2003-4 working for Wackenhut Fire and Emergency Services. Firefighters have a very interesting culture uniquely their own. Good folks.

 

not accurate in terms of statutory law, but colloquially you are correct.

 

The vast majority of departments in my part of the world are comprised of volunteers. So we are sworn and subject to state fire Marshall oversight and law. But there is no hanging out at the station playing video games on 48 hour shifts. LOL



Kind of off topic, but I’m appalled at how the Lahaina department handled the fire that killed so many folks on Maui. Those asshats LEFT the scene of a fire they “believed” was extinguished in dry grass in high wind and low humidity conditions upwind from a town! We routinely have grass/hay fires in similar conditions here. It’s SOP to have a CREW stay on sight of a contained fire in such conditions around the clock for at least 24 hours or until conditions change (rain or something). Manslaughter charges should be in the future for a lot of folks involved in that tragedy.

 

There will be some very revealing investigations.

 

It appears that everything that could have been done to ensure the town burned, and as many people as possible with it, was done.

 

Did you see the water management guy trying to justify his refusal to release water assets?

 

No, what’s his excuse? I have thoughts on that as well being a farmer that supplies water to fire departments including my own….