What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

How Would The US Do What New Zealand Just Did Banning Assault Weapons? (1 Viewer)

It won't happen until non-whites start using assault weapons to kill white Republicans on a regular basis.

 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

Republicans literally crafted gun control laws and anti carry laws because black panthers were open carrying in public. Have a bunch of black guys carry around rifles in public like overweight white guys do and you will start seeing laws get crafted (assuming they don't just get gunned down by the police). 

 
Rifles account for roughly 2-3% of homicides in America.  Tens of thousands of people will still be killed each year whether you ban them or not.  There should be more effort on fixing gun violence as a whole, not some tiny subset of the problem.

 
It won't happen until non-whites start using assault weapons to kill white Republicans on a regular basis.
very rarely do "assault" rifles get used

you know that, right ? like 2% of gun deaths are rifles at all ... literally more people are killed with knives/hammers/fists

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Banning multishot rifles will not prevent every death, so why do anything, says country where there are numerous instances per year of school children getting gunned down with them. 

 
think of the prison system

100% ban on just about every weapon imaginable and many items you and I would never consider a weapon. Strict monitoring of everyone.

does that stop murdering and assaults from happening? why not ?

 
How many 6 year olds can someone kill with a hammer? I bet it is a smaller number than with a gun. Plus it is great cardio!

 
Im all for it.....ban em all i say....i used to be a staunch 2nd amendment and hunter guy....let me go pick up my hunting rifle somewhere before i go up north to  shoot bambi and im good.....no reason for an assault rifle in civilian hands

 
Rifles account for roughly 2-3% of homicides in America.  Tens of thousands of people will still be killed each year whether you ban them or not.  There should be more effort on fixing gun violence as a whole, not some tiny subset of the problem.
Statistics only matter if it supports things like more dead bodies this year from white nationalists than from muslim extremists.   

 
How 'bout we start somewhere?
Obama threatened an assault rifle ban and the only thing that happened was gun ownership in America more than doubled under his presidential terms.  People keep pretending this will have a profound impact on the safety in America and it won't.  It's not "starting somewhere", it's wasting energy best spent elsewhere.

 
A better electoral system would have kept the unfit Donald Trump from ever sniffing the presidency. A better government wouldn't have a president selected by a minority of voters to begin with or maybe even a president at all. 

Most of the modern world has recognized the need to get things done and hold the elected government responsible for doing so. If the changes turn out to be not so good, then the responsibility lies with the elected government to get that fixed, too. And the nature of their systems makes it possible for the voters to do this. 

It's 2019, the country is big and the world moves fast. This is no time for 18th century governance and the likes of Donald Trump.
Interesting. Thanks. 

 
Or to put it another way: There’s no official criteria for what qualifies as an “assault rifle,” and the government doesn’t keep detailed data on the different types of firearms owned by Americans.

It's hard to even estimate how many there are out there.  15 to 20 million?  The AR-15 is the most popular "sporting rifle" in America.
Any law banning an assault rifle needs to define what it is.   Washington, for example, just went the broadest route possible and defined all semiautomatic rifles as assault rifles.  This was intentional, because the 1994 federal ban defined them based on certain components or characteristics, which just allowed manufacturers to modify rifles or their components to work around the ban.   

You're right that the fact that there is no national gun registry or searchable database is a massive problem in trying to enforce a ban.

 
Obama threatened an assault rifle ban and the only thing that happened was gun ownership in America more than doubled under his presidential terms.  People keep pretending this will have a profound impact on the safety in America and it won't.  It's not "starting somewhere", it's wasting energy best spent elsewhere.
So gun people freaked out over just the threat of a ban?  So what's the takeaway, we can't do anything or we'll be held hostage by their paranoia?  Is that supposed to suggest something about a better place to start?  

Also, I don't think anyone is "pretending this will have a profound impact on the safety in America".  It's an attempt to deal with a specific type of especially horrific event. And yes, these incidents are fairly rare statistically in the grand scheme of all shooting deaths, but they are still way too common.  If we can't  start with incidents where schoolchildren, concert-goers, people at a club, etc are mowed down in cold blood by the dozens or more for no reason at all, where can we start?  All ears.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Assault rifles aren't protected by the second amendment the same way handguns are, so it is much easier to pass enforceable gun control relating to them.   Since they are used in a disproportionate amount of mass shootings, it should be a no-brainer to add more controls, up to an including a ban.   The bigger problem is that semiautomatic handguns are our main source of gun violence, and the second amendment prevents any meaningful restriction on them.

As shown by the pro-gun side, this argument is a favorite of the gun lobby--why address a weapon that isn't the main problem?   The way that our Supreme Court has interpreted the second amendment and completely eliminated the "well-regulated militia" portion has led us here.   The Supreme Court says, well, if you want to fix it then revise the second amendment.   Good luck with that.  

 
I'd have to think that would be a pretty big thing though. Maybe I'm naive, but lots of people I know who are pro-gun are pretty strongly opposed to breaking the law. 
That is the crux of the pro-gun crowd. Passing new laws only affects the law abiding citizens but does nothing for the criminals.

 
How? Why aren't they caught now?
Because they would get caught having illegal guns in normal day-to-day situations.  Not just while committing other crimes.

And this plays right off of the "criminals wont obey" that the right-wing has professed for decades.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because they would get caught having illegal guns in normal day-to-day to situations.  Not just while committing other crimes.

And this plays right off of the "criminals wont obey" that the right-wing has professed for decades.
You didn't answer my questions. How? Why aren't they catching all of the illegal guns now?

 
You didn't answer my questions. How? Why aren't they catching all of the illegal guns now?
Nobody gets arrested for having guns right now. And none of the guns are currently illegal.

What they do get arrested for though is stuff like grenades and plastic explosives when they are seen to have those. That's why that stuff isn't often owned or seen! AMAZING HUH?

 
Assault rifles aren't protected by the second amendment the same way handguns are, so it is much easier to pass enforceable gun control relating to them.   Since they are used in a disproportionate amount of mass shootings, it should be a no-brainer to add more controls, up to an including a ban.   The bigger problem is that semiautomatic handguns are our main source of gun violence, and the second amendment prevents any meaningful restriction on them.

As shown by the pro-gun side, this argument is a favorite of the gun lobby--why address a weapon that isn't the main problem?   The way that our Supreme Court has interpreted the second amendment and completely eliminated the "well-regulated militia" portion has led us here.   The Supreme Court says, well, if you want to fix it then revise the second amendment.   Good luck with that.  
Actually no particular gun is protected by the second amendment other than a muzzle loading musket rifle. Because that's all they knew.

 
Actually no particular gun is protected by the second amendment other than a muzzle loading musket rifle. Because that's all they knew.
According to the Supreme Court, you're wrong.  Miller and Heller are our controlling decisions.  It doesn't matter what you think the second amendment says.   This is what we're stuck with, and with the makeup of the current court, it's either going to stay the same or get worse.

 
think of the prison system

100% ban on just about every weapon imaginable and many items you and I would never consider a weapon. Strict monitoring of everyone.

does that stop murdering and assaults from happening? why not ?
Think of the prison system but everyone can have a gun if they want. Now take away the walls and add a bunch of innocent civilians. Welcome to America. 

 
think of the prison system

100% ban on just about every weapon imaginable and many items you and I would never consider a weapon. Strict monitoring of everyone.

does that stop murdering and assaults from happening? why not ?
because it's prison and many of them have lost hope?

 
We dont need a constitutional amendment.  We just need to stop purposely misinterpreting the one we have. The founders were familiar with gun control. It was legal prior to ratification and it was legal after.
This...a million times this.  And I'll say again, this changes from the bottom up, not the top down.

 
According to the Supreme Court, you're wrong.  Miller and Heller are our controlling decisions.  It doesn't matter what you think the second amendment says.   This is what we're stuck with, and with the makeup of the current court, it's either going to stay the same or get worse.
No I'm right and it's likely the judges who voted that way know it. Especially given the nearly 200 years of jurisprudence on my side of the argument.

 
Actually no particular gun is protected by the second amendment other than a muzzle loading musket rifle. Because that's all they knew.
According to the Supreme Court, you're wrong. 
Not just the Supreme Court. That form of argument is rejected by nearly everybody in other contexts.

Blogs are not protected speech? Bahá'í is not a protected religion? To the extent that we have a constitutional right to interstate travel, it must be on foot or by horseback rather than by motorcar?

 
Not just the Supreme Court. That form of argument is rejected by nearly everybody in other contexts.

Blogs are not protected speech? Bahá'í is not a protected religion? To the extent that we have a constitutional right to interstate travel, it must be on foot or by horseback rather than by motorcar?
Actually no its different. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure states could maintain militias instead of there being a standing federal army. The idea was every man would have the right to a rifle so he could serve in the state militia. Now I was having a bit of fun but not much the musket rifle is what that amendment was protecting. Given we have a standing army and no state militias the second is outdated, like the musket, and is now being applied erroneously. 

 
think of the prison system

100% ban on just about every weapon imaginable and many items you and I would never consider a weapon. Strict monitoring of everyone.

does that stop murdering and assaults from happening? why not ?
I suspect that banning weapons in prison stops a huge number of murders and assaults from happening.

To run the experiment, we could try giving prisoners access to handguns for a few weeks and see what happens. I wouldn’t expect the results to be encouraging.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
Actually no its different. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure states could maintain militias instead of there being a standing federal army. The idea was every man would have the right to a rifle so he could serve in the state militia. Now I was having a bit of fun but not much the musket rifle is what that amendment was protecting. Given we have a standing army and no state militias the second is outdated, like the musket, and is now being applied erroneously. 
Again, this argument is wrong.    Gun control, or the right to bear arms, have nothing whatsoever to do with militias anymore.   This entire line of thinking has been rendered meaningless by our Supreme Court.  The words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" doesn't mean a thing anymore.  The Court decided that it was the founders clearing their throats--a meaningless prefatory clause.  You're pissing in the wind making arguments that will never go anywhere.   

 
Again, this argument is wrong.    Gun control, or the right to bear arms, have nothing whatsoever to do with militias anymore.   This entire line of thinking has been rendered meaningless by our Supreme Court.  The words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" doesn't mean a thing anymore.  The Court decided that it was the founders clearing their throats--a meaningless prefatory clause.  You're pissing in the wind making arguments that will never go anywhere.   
And of course the court is never wrong. Seperate but equal right?

 
And of course the court is never wrong. Seperate but equal right?
Whether you agree with the Court or not is irrelevant.  The law is what it is and it isn't going anywhere, so arguing gun control from a perspective of what you believe the second amendment should mean doesn't really accomplish a lot, and is probably harmful as it just confuses people about what is actually possible and what the Second Amendment really means to us today.  Assault rifles aren't covered by the Second Amendment  (for now) because under Miller they're dangerous and unusual weapons.   Handguns are nearly impossible to regulate because they're commonly used for home defense.   Those are the factors at this point, and nothing else really matters.  There's very little chance that the Court is moving in any different direction in the near future.   The NRA is going to push hard on the narrative that AR-15s and the like are "commonly used for home defense" because they're popular.   Kavanaugh has already indicated that is his position.   If the Supremes get to that point, we'll no longer be able to ban assault weapons either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whether you agree with the Court or not is irrelevant.  The law is what it is and it isn't going anywhere, so arguing gun control from a perspective of what you believe the second amendment should mean doesn't really accomplish a lot, and is probably harmful as it just confuses people about what is actually possible and what the Second Amendment really means to us today.  Assault rifles aren't covered by the Second Amendment  (for now) because under Miller they're dangerous and unusual weapons.   Handguns are nearly impossible to regulate because they're commonly used for home defense.   Those are the factors at this point, and nothing else really matters.  There's very little chance that the Court is moving in any different direction in the near future.   The NRA is going to push hard on the narrative that AR-15s and the like are "commonly used for home defense" because they're popular.   Kavanaugh has already indicated that is his position.   If the Supremes get to that point, we'll no longer be able to ban assault weapons either.
People die. Even younger people who knows the make up of the court 5 years from now? People also drift in their beliefs. A yes vote today is a no down the road. So to me discussing and educating on what the amendment says, its history and how it's being misused does serve a purpose. Saying you can't change anything doesn't. 

 
Again, this argument is wrong.    Gun control, or the right to bear arms, have nothing whatsoever to do with militias anymore.   This entire line of thinking has been rendered meaningless by our Supreme Court.  The words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" doesn't mean a thing anymore.  The Court decided that it was the founders clearing their throats--a meaningless prefatory clause.  You're pissing in the wind making arguments that will never go anywhere.   
I don't disagree at all with what you said, but would like to point out that the Supreme Court effectively edited the Constitution by choosing to ignore words that it contains. 

In other words, they failed us. 

 
This seems illogical to me. I mean, I’m glad it’s so but it still doesn’t make any sense. 
Exactly. Militias would be better with people armed with assault rifles than they would be with hand guns. But the present day court believes the 2nd has nothing to do with militias. And yes, it's illogical. 

 
People die. Even younger people who knows the make up of the court 5 years from now? People also drift in their beliefs. A yes vote today is a no down the road. So to me discussing and educating on what the amendment says, its history and how it's being misused does serve a purpose. Saying you can't change anything doesn't. 
Scalia would say you're wrong on what it says and its history, and a majority of the court agreed with him.   Your position is not helpful at all for discussing what gun control measures can be adopted now, and it misleads people when you pretend that your interpretation of the constitution hasn't already been refuted.   Sure, laws can change in the future.   But for now, what you wish the constitution means is completely irrelevant to a discussion of what can be done today.  

 
I don't disagree at all with what you said, but would like to point out that the Supreme Court effectively edited the Constitution by choosing to ignore words that it contains. 

In other words, they failed us. 
Ironically, this judicial editing was done by a claimed strict constructionist.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top