The firearms subreddit is really unhinged
The firearms subreddit is really unhinged
Running out of reality to blame, they got to make stories.
You're viewing a single thread.
That's essentially how gun control works though.
Maybe the biggest workout your AR-15 gets is the monthly 2-gun PCSL match. But your state has decided that a mass murder in a different state is a good enough reason to ban semi-automatic rifles with box magazines, and now you're a felon for simply possessing something that was legal when you bought it.
And there's not really an end point, because all the bans in the world don't change human nature. Germany is cracking down on people carrying pocket knives because stabbings are up sharply. In England you can't carry a screwdriver without good cause. Banning tools doesn't change the material circumstances that lead to violence. (Not that either Republicans or Democrats want to do that; Dems want to ban guns, Republicans want to ban anyone that isn't a straight white christian from owning them.)
Slippery slope fallacy, huh? How about we start the conversation with agreeing that we want to reduce deaths and injuries from firearms, and figure out a sensible way to do that?
Sure. And I can happily give you some great ideas that don't infringe on fundamental civil rights.
Most violent crime is a result of material circumstances, so change the circumstances. Make income and wealth more equal through tax policy so that there's less disparity between the worst-off and the best. (Yes, I think even a single billionaire is a failure.) Adequately fund public education, and stop letting conservatives steer money towards charter and magnet school. Reform the criminal justice system to focus on reform instead of punishment. Create a single-payer health system so that no one has to drown in medical debt, and start seriously funding public mental health systems. (My first therapist in Chicago had been in public mental health until the city slashed the budget--again--and he lost his job. He went from working with severely mentally ill homeless people--people who desperately needed the help--to high-functioning autistic people like me that just kind of suck at being human.) Build and adequately fund high-density public housing so that no one has to live in a ghetto. And, maybe most importantly, start funding community programs, like sports leagues, gardening groups, and the like, all on the public dime, so that people can start building real-life connections.
Fucks sake, we're nearly the richest country in the world, we can do this shit.
Banning tools doesn't change the material circumstances that lead to violence.
I agree, however some tools can bring about a lot more violence in a much shorter time than others. I'd rather try to escape someone with a knife than someone with a gun.
So we should ban pressure cookers, right?
I think I'd have an even easier time avoiding someone trying to attack me with a pressure cooker than someone trying to attack me with a knife.
Unless you were running a marathon, huh?
possessing something that was legal when you bought it
I'm there ATM, yet the first thing I ever learned about the law in school was the notion of "grandfathering".
Germany is cracking down on people carrying pocket knives because stabbings are up sharply. In England you can't carry a screwdriver without good cause.
And all of that is true, read it right here in lemmy, and far beyond weird to my sensibilities.
I’m there ATM, yet the first thing I ever learned about the law in school was the notion of “grandfathering”.
Supposed to be a thing, and yet isn't, not really. You can talk about the 'takings' clause, too. What states may do is ban a thing, and require you to turn it in, and then give you what the state thinks is a just compensation. Or insist that, while you can own it, you can never sell or otherwise transfer it, which undercuts the idea of ownership of a thing in the first place.
The takings clause applies only to real property. If you're talking about personal property, it is never a taking.
Things can be outlawed. It's called contraband. You're not entitled to anything.
So, to be clear, if you bought a new car for $47,000--the current average price for a new car in the US--and the day after you'd paid and taken possession of the car all internal combustion vehicle ownership was banned, and it was a criminal offense to even possess that car, you'd argue that the gov't had the right to seize your car. And that you had no rights to own that car. Is that more or less correct?
No, the government couldn't seize the car, but you could be arrested for possessing it or driving it, depending how the law was written. Obviously it would be a very unpopular law, possibly less popular than prohibition. A more popular example would be like the law banning cocaine, and all those old Coca Cola products instantly became contraband, even if your store just spent $47,000 on new inventory. They could make your hypothetical more popular by allowing people to be grandfathered in, or by banning production years before banning possession.
Edit: color me not so sure. Apparently there was a Supreme Court decision in 2015 that makes this less clear. When I finished law school, only real property triggered the takings clause.
No, the government couldn’t seize the car, but you could be arrested for possessing it[...]
That seems like a fairly meaningless distinction, even for the law. Yes, I know that there's dumb shit like that sprinkled throughout state and federal law, but still.
possessing something that was legal when you bought it.
Like some sort of contra banning. Could even call it, contraband!
Or, you could weld a ten round magazine into place and go about your business as not a criminal. There's always the choice to be responsible.
How, exactly, are you going to load a Glock that has a magazine welded into place?
Very painfully. Laws usually allow pistols to operate with removable magazines still. If they want to brick your weapon they should buy it off you.
You can't actually load a semi-auto pistol with a magazine in place, or, you can't without removing the slide and barrel. Most pistol magazines are double stack, single feed, so the bullet needs to start in front of the magazine. (I think that Steyr makes a double stack/double feed pistol magazine?) But with a magazine stuck in place, the barrel is going to be in front of the bullet, leaving you no room to load the magazine.
you can't without removing the slide and barrel.
I.e. very painfully
If you are a responsible gun owner who would only ever need a gun for self defense, then you will never need to reload.
So we're now redefining 2A rights to only apply to self-defense requiring ten (10) or fewer bullets...?
Single use guns! No need to ever practice, we all have perfect accuracy!
Don't give Hi Point and Taurus ideas!