Question on banning assault rifles in the US

[Paulywally]

I wanted to post this topic and see what types of responses I would receive on the UM boards. So here goes!

I firmly believe that military style/high powered assault rifles have no real place among the civilian population in the United States. With that being said, I also believe banning these types of weapons would result in civilian unrest, and basically start a civil war here in the US. I have had numerous conversations with coworkers, family,and friends about this very topic. Most of the conversations end something like this, "you are crazy, people won't start a war over not having access to high powered weapons." Sometimes I receive this type of response, "oh that is nonsense, people won't fight in the streets if they banned those weapons. The NRA and the gun nuts just want you to believe that." I have also received this response numerous times when engaging in a conversation about this topic "selling guns in America is big business, big business is the real reason those kind of weapons are still on the streets. Not enough people would be willing to lay down their lives over owning assault rifles/high powered weapons to start a real civil war."

I was just looking for some opinions on the matter, outside of my normal circle of people/friends in this world. Thanks in advance for any response, I look forward to reading your opinions!

 

Pauly

[GlitterRose]

I don't think it would pass in our current climate. That said, they have been banned before, and we didn't have a civil war over it.

[Uncle Sam]

37 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I don't think it would pass in our current climate. That said, they have been banned before, and we didn't have a civil war over it.

High Powered Assault Rifles have been in almost all states and it has been this way for years. So basically you two are arguing about creating a law that already exists, the exact same law that is already on the books for over a decade since the first mass shooting. Many of us, those who cherish the 2nd amendment and constitution have been trying to tell you guys this for years. Of course whatever we say goes in one ear and out the other.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Uncle Sam

[Farmer77]

1 hour ago, Paulywally said:

Sometimes I receive this type of response, "oh that is nonsense, people won't fight in the streets if they banned those weapons. The NRA and the gun nuts just want you to believe that."

Despite being passionately pro second amendment I think your friends are right, for the most part people won't fight to keep their weapons. There will however be a minority who will fight and it is the deaths of those who do that will draw in people from the middle and force them to take arms. 

Thats largely my summary of the state of the nation in general. Any one of several different issues could kick off some really bad unrest following that same pattern of the actions of the government against the fringe drawing in folks from the center. (we had a mini example of that psychology with the NFL protests. They were small to begin with and then had almost died off until the government got involved. ) 

[GlitterRose]

11 minutes ago, Uncle Sam said:

High Powered Assault Rifles have been in almost all states and it has been this way for years. So basically you two are arguing about creating a law that already exists, the exact same law that is already on the books for over a decade since the first mass shooting. Many of us, those who cherish the 2nd amendment and constitution have been trying to tell you guys this for years. Of course whatever we say goes in one ear and out the other.

I'm not arguing anything.

Looks like you are, though.

[Gunn]

3 hours ago, Paulywally said:

I wanted to post this topic and see what types of responses I would receive on the UM boards. So here goes!

I firmly believe that military style/high powered assault rifles have no real place among the civilian population in the United States. With that being said, I also believe banning these types of weapons would result in civilian unrest, and basically start a civil war here in the US. I have had numerous conversations with coworkers, family,and friends about this very topic. Most of the conversations end something like this, "you are crazy, people won't start a war over not having access to high powered weapons." Sometimes I receive this type of response, "oh that is nonsense, people won't fight in the streets if they banned those weapons. The NRA and the gun nuts just want you to believe that." I have also received this response numerous times when engaging in a conversation about this topic "selling guns in America is big business, big business is the real reason those kind of weapons are still on the streets. Not enough people would be willing to lay down their lives over owning assault rifles/high powered weapons to start a real civil war."

I was just looking for some opinions on the matter, outside of my normal circle of people/friends in this world. Thanks in advance for any response, I look forward to reading your opinions!

 

Pauly

As in banning all semi-automatic rifles and restricting us down to one shot\single bolt action rifles and muzzle loaders. Hard to say really, whether that would erupt into a full blown civil war across the country or not, but if anything, our own history teaches us much. For example - If you think about the Waco,Texas incident, one forceful action by the government led to another action by somebody else, when the government took siege of the compound. Timothy McVeigh and others decided to take revenge on the government for that incident and they didn't even use any guns. Because he was angry at the way the government had done it. So he and others went with extreme methods, much like the IRA and just blew up a federal building in what they viewed as retaliation for the Waco tragedy.

So that's just how far one similar incident went, all though it was about other complicated issues as well, but just imagine if the retaliation hadn't stop with Timothy McVeigh though; thank god it did. So if you look at what happened there and you think about it on a bigger scale, which involves a helluva lot more people then that - say for instance, if you had not one but quite a few groups of rifle owners with semi-automatics, band together who resisted in giving up their rifles, except this time they're not all in one place as in the example of Waco, but then the government tried to raid all those many compounds, killing quite a few people here and there in the process, in order to confiscate those guns and imprison the new law breakers that were left alive, then there could be more retaliation on higher level from others.

Because many of them might view that as an attack on the American people by their own government and that could cause a domino effect of civil unrest across the country, which may or may not led to a full blown civil war across the country. I mean, some of the military personal could become sympathetic to the people, because some of them are friends\family to those who are resisting the law and become divided on the issue with other military personal. It's hard to say how worse it could get after that.

I guess overall, it just depends on how it goes down and how the government handles it in trying to confiscate those type of guns, when there are millions of them in the hands of gun owners, not just one small group in Waco, Texas. All though, I don't see how else they could do it if a large number of gun owners resist. And you know there are bound to be at least quite a few people who are going to resist that new law. And if some get together and hold out in a number of military style compounds, that's going to be a bigger problem from the start.

[Paulywally]

Thank you all for these insightful and thoughtful responses. I cherish your opinions, and give great praise to the people on the UM boards for such well thought out responses!

[Vorg]

Maybe pass a law for those who own military grade casualty weapons join a Militia and keep them securely locked up there.

The other weapons, for hunting and sport could be kept in homes.

The way I see the second amendment written was, people had guns, yet the people were not the Army. Those were paid soldiers. The militia was formed by the people to supplement the Army, with their own weapons that they kept at their homes.

Militia and Army are not the same. So...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Do we have a well regulated milita?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

Maybe pass a law for those who own military grade casualty weapons join a Militia and keep them securely locked up there.

The other weapons, for hunting and sport could be kept in homes.

The way I see the second amendment written was, people had guns, yet the people were not the Army. Those were paid soldiers. The militia was formed by the people to supplement the Army, with their own weapons that they kept at their homes.

Militia and Army are not the same. So...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

What is the dominant clause in that sentence? Is it the milita part or thr right to arm bears? The subordinate one is “being necessary to the security of a free state” which can apply equally to EITHER other clause. 

[Vorg]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Do we have a well regulated milita?

No. That's kind of my point on Assault weapons. Keep them at Militias and maybe start controlling the flow of these weapons, basically regulate them well.

Edited October 14, 2017 by South Alabam

[Vorg]

31 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

What is the dominant clause in that sentence? Is it the milita part or thr right to arm bears? The subordinate one is “being necessary to the security of a free state” which can apply equally to EITHER other clause. 

Well said.

[AnchorSteam]

3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Do we have a well regulated milita?

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Blaming gun-ownders for Las Vegas is like blaming frequent flyers for 9/11.

 

If you want gun-control, you are not anti-gun, not at all. You want Police with Guns to confiscate guns in the hands of private citizens. You want men with guns to enforce that activity, and you want all weapons that could possibly enforce self-determination to be solely in the hands of the Government's enforcers ... and you should remmeber that every time you see a report on one of the 1,000 people killed by Cops every year. 

I know that the establishment is trying to convince everyone that any person with a Government ID card deserves the equivalent of Papal Infallibility, and that all Private Citizens (like you and I) are too stupid and evil to know what's best for us... but you'd better think twice before giving them all the power there is.

Once they have it all, there is no getting any of it back.

 

 

[Adampadum123]

I don't believe it's the weapons to blame or ban.its how easily accessible they are 

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

What part of do we have a well regulated milita did you not understand?  It is not the army, does the National Guard qualify?  What about the reserves?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Obviously, framers of the Constitution thought  a well regulated milita was necessary for the security of a free state.  So why don't we have one?

You read what you want to read and jump to conclusions and assume all of my views are all  leftie.  I don't want you to give up your guns.  I just want you to think about what you have and what they are good for.

You bring up some good points.  

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

If you want gun-control, you are not anti-gun, not at all. You want Police with Guns to confiscate guns in the hands of private citizens. You want men with guns to enforce that activity, and you want all weapons that could possibly enforce self-determination to be solely in the hands of the Government's enforcers ... and you should remmeber that every time you see a report on one of the 1,000 people killed by Cops every year. 

The militarization of police is progressing rapidly.  The argument in favor is so that they can better control riots.  How many people in any of those riots had a gun or shot anybody?  The argument seems a little weak.  Police with military equipment and military vehicular backup  are overarmed to deal with most situations, and they can be a lot more detached and violent.  I do think about all of those people being shot, most of them are not armed at all.  This is not a good trend.  It will not promote security or law and order.  I oppose it because it just gets closer to martial law.  Do you feel safer when police have APC's, armored robots, and attack helicopters?

 

3 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

I know that the establishment is trying to convince everyone that any person with a Government ID card deserves the equivalent of Papal Infallibility, and that all Private Citizens (like you and I) are too stupid and evil to know what's best for us... but you'd better think twice before giving them all the power there is.

 We have already given them too much power.  

[SHaYap]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

We have already given them too much power.  

yep ...

~

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Blaming gun-ownders for Las Vegas is like blaming frequent flyers for 9/11.

 

If you want gun-control, you are not anti-gun, not at all. You want Police with Guns to confiscate guns in the hands of private citizens. You want men with guns to enforce that activity, and you want all weapons that could possibly enforce self-determination to be solely in the hands of the Government's enforcers ... and you should remmeber that every time you see a report on one of the 1,000 people killed by Cops every year. 

I know that the establishment is trying to convince everyone that any person with a Government ID card deserves the equivalent of Papal Infallibility, and that all Private Citizens (like you and I) are too stupid and evil to know what's best for us... but you'd better think twice before giving them all the power there is.

Once they have it all, there is no getting any of it back.

 

 

“Shall not be infringed” is a subordinate clause, we need t know which of the two dominate clauses it’s referring to.

[AnchorSteam]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

51 minutes ago, third_eye said:

yep ...

~

 We have already given them too much power.  

Agreed.

So, what are we going to do about it?

If Trump tries to take away some of that power, and firepower, and make the police act more like normal people, would you support that?

Yeah, I know, stupid question, no matter what its just verboten even if he's actually doing it.

 

41 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

“Shall not be infringed” is a subordinate clause, we need t know which of the two dominate clauses it’s referring to.

Playing word games is the last refuge of a Lawyer with a losing case.

[+DieChecker]

18 hours ago, Paulywally said:

I wanted to post this topic and see what types of responses I would receive on the UM boards. So here goes!

I firmly believe that military style/high powered assault rifles have no real place among the civilian population in the United States. With that being said, I also believe banning these types of weapons would result in civilian unrest, and basically start a civil war here in the US. I have had numerous conversations with coworkers, family,and friends about this very topic. Most of the conversations end something like this, "you are crazy, people won't start a war over not having access to high powered weapons." Sometimes I receive this type of response, "oh that is nonsense, people won't fight in the streets if they banned those weapons. The NRA and the gun nuts just want you to believe that." I have also received this response numerous times when engaging in a conversation about this topic "selling guns in America is big business, big business is the real reason those kind of weapons are still on the streets. Not enough people would be willing to lay down their lives over owning assault rifles/high powered weapons to start a real civil war."

I was just looking for some opinions on the matter, outside of my normal circle of people/friends in this world. Thanks in advance for any response, I look forward to reading your opinions!

 

Pauly

My opinion would be that most "assault" style rifles are not "high powered". Most hunting rifles have a lot more power, IMHO. The real issue is the fire rate. And like was said, fully automatic assault weapons are already banned, or nearly so, all across the US. Perhaps we should ban anything that "looks" like an assault rifle? Useless! As that is only appearance, not functionality. The fully automatic functionality can be built into a rifle that looks just like a hunting rifle.

Myself, If I was to be fighting with a civilian weapon as part of a militia, or otherwise homegrown defense force... I'd want a semi-auto hunting rifle with a scope, not an M-16 that just throws lead downrange. I was in the US Army, and though they say the M-16 is good out to 300 yards... When we went to the range, I'd only try shooting at every other target at that range, so I could shoot twice at the next one to come up. Every other target I could hit. BUT... With a hunting rifle and scope, you're looking at 500 yards EASY. Manytimes you're looking at a clean hit at 1000 yards. 

That's maybe just me, but I'd rather be shooting at the enemy at 1000 yards as fast as I can pull the trigger, rather then at 250 yards on full auto. 

Some argue that an assault rifle would be better in an urban environment, and that would be true over a hunting rifle. Going house to house though, I'd rather have a heavy type pistol, rather then a assault rifle. But, again, that is just me.

As to fighting in the streets... I think I read that there are 300 million firearms in the US, and about 100 million gun owners. I know quite a few gun owners, and despite being across the political spectrum, then have in common that they all seem like they would not just give up their guns. They might be induced to hand over some guns on a buy back plan, but I don't know any who would willingly hand over all their guns.

Myself, I own a 22 rifle that is in my dad's gun safe, and a BB gun from when I was a kid. 

10 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

What is the dominant clause in that sentence? Is it the milita part or thr right to arm bears? The subordinate one is “being necessary to the security of a free state” which can apply equally to EITHER other clause. 

Well, the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly, regardless of ideological mix, always came down on the side of the latter... that the "right to bear arms" trumps the necessity of a "militia".

[+DieChecker]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

As to fighting in the streets... I think I read that there are 300 million firearms in the US, and about 100 million gun owners. I know quite a few gun owners, and despite being across the political spectrum, then have in common that they all seem like they would not just give up their guns. They might be induced to hand over some guns on a buy back plan, but I don't know any who would willingly hand over all their guns.

Just wanted to note that if EVEN 1% of gun owners got super upset.... That would be 1 million people. And when was the last time we saw politicians NOT backing down when a million people complained?

It is not the NRA that is preventing gun laws. It is fear, by the politicians, of the people who own the guns putting up a stink. Which could result in those said politicians losing their elected position.

And we all know what an elected position means?? Money....

[Tatetopa]

10 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Agreed.

So, what are we going to do about it?

If Trump tries to take away some of that power, and firepower, and make the police act more like normal people, would you support that?

Yeah, I know, stupid question, no matter what its just verboten even if he's actually doing it.

Not  a stupid question, two incorrect  assumptions. 

First: of course I would support that.  We come at things from different directions but sometimes we agree in the middle.  Militarized Police can be used to suppress freedom as well as protect it.

Second: so far, President Trump has moved in the other direction.  You can Google  "Trump arms police with military weapons" and find a number of sources.  He signed an executive order in August to do that.  Jeff Sessions spoke about it at a Police Chief's convention. I pulled one off the top of the search results.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/28/16214600/trump-police-military-sessions

The Trump administration is taking steps to ensure more police officers can equip themselves with camouflage uniforms, bayonets, and even grenade launchers.

On Monday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order reversing rules by former President Barack Obama that restricted police departments’ ability to obtain surplus military weapons. The Obama-era restrictions curtailed programs, such as the 1033 program, that effectively let police obtain excess military gear from federal agencies for free or through federal dollars.  The Trump administration has argued that military equipment is necessary for police to do their jobs in a safe manner. “I am here to announce that President Trump is issuing an executive order that will make it easier to protect yourselves and your communities,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a conference by the National Fraternal Order of Police on Monday.

If police need military weapons to control the population, something has gone far wrong.

 

[aztek]

On 10/15/2017 at 2:12 AM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

“Shall not be infringed” is a subordinate clause, we need t know which of the two dominate clauses it’s referring to.

no we do not, it is pretty clear from the way it is written, it applies to the right,  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

3 hours ago, aztek said:

no we do not, it is pretty clear from the way it is written, it applies to the right,  

It isn’t clear Aztek, you can cut the entire chunk after “well regulated militia being necessary for a free state” until “shall not be infringed” and the sentence will still make sense. 

 

 

 

However, I see that the Supreme Court has spoken on the matter and it’s the bearing of arms that shan’t be infringed.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Sir Wearer of Hats

[Hawken]

Maybe cellphones should be banned so people won't text and drive and traffic fatalities will be greatly reduced.

It would also save pedestrians from doing harm to themselves by walking out in traffic.

[Kurzweil]

39 minutes ago, Hawkin said:

Maybe cellphones should be banned so people won't text and drive and traffic fatalities will be greatly reduced.

It would also save pedestrians from doing harm to themselves by walking out in traffic.

Maybe cars should have a signal blocker like some movie theaters do. Back to the subject errr I had nothing prepared for that part. Maybe I'll be back.