Honestly, I respect that stance more than I respect the folks with a dozen half-assed definitions and assorted conditions on what people should or should not own.
I disagree with it, but I respect it.
Lol
At what point in this conversation have I ever pissed and moaned about the M-16 being a classic American rifle or complained about magazine capacity? At what point did I ever deny or disparage the effectiveness of the 90’s Federal ban?
And you’ll get that court about the time you get rid of Citizen’s United. But why not at least encourage lawmakers to get rid of the low hanging fruit that gives them an easy excuse to strike new gun laws down and force the lobbyists to spend more of that money to defeat it?
Or you can blame people for pointing out obvious flaws in these policies and accuse those people of arguing for standpoints they’ve never held…
Take whatever approach you think is most effective.
I don’t care what you call it. The semantics don’t matter to me. We can do it in any terms you like.
But if you ban gun A because it’s weapon of war, but allow gun B to be sold because it’s a hunting tool, when both are semi-automaitc guns shooting the same bullet out of clips, then your ban accomplished nothing of substance and won’t be around long.
But all that matters is people don’t have that one specific kind of gun, right?
I’m not even arguing the usefulness of bans here, just that the people trying to enact them write them in a way that undermines their purpose and leads to a defeat in the courts. You want to ban assault rifles? Write better legislation.
As a thought experiment, if someone attacks me with lethal intent, and I grab what is by your definition an assault weapon and not a self defense tool, does that make my defense of self and family invalid? Do I now somehow become the aggressor in this scenario because I am weilding a weapon of war? Is it only ethical for me to defend myself with a pistol? Am I bound by eithics to ensure I don’t have an advantage in effective range over my attacker?
The Remington Model 700 was introduced in the 1960’s and adapted to become a sniper rifle by the US military in the late 1980’s. Many of the modifications made to the design for military use are the same that competitive sport shooters would make to improve long range accuracy. It was a hunting tool first, but became a highly effective weapon of war used with the intent to kill. Would it be prudent to ban this firearm as well, or does the 700 get a pass based on the origin of it’s design?
I ask, not because I cradle my rifle at night praying for a break in or because I’m not concerned about gun violence, but because campaigns to ban assault rifles so often focus on the origin of these designs rather than on the technical details and civilian uses of the firearm in question. This becomes important when, as is all but inevitable, that ban winds up in court. As gets mentioned so often the only fundamental difference between an AR-15 and any number of small caliber hunting rifles (which can often be found chambered in 5.56/.223 just like an AR-15) is that the AR-15 has a pistol grip. It’s an uneven application of the legal process even before you consider 2A rights.
It’s not always about the government. Regardless of what happens in 2028, we’re likely to have the American version of the The Troubles.
All you can do if the tanks roll in is haul ass, try to avoid flock cameras, and hope no one is looking for you specifically. But, when whatever paramilitary org is upset this week starts burning your neighborhood and the police decide they aren’t going to do much about it, community defense becomes a viable option.
Even for him.
I like him. I don’t always agree with him, but I think he’s one of the few that really gives a shit and actually walks what he talks and I deeply respect that. I value the perspective that comes with age too. But it’s time for age limits, man. It’s past time.