My Proposal for alleviating United States Firearm issues

[OldWiseGuy]

In any case, some pro-gun advocates in this forum have said that they realize that they have no real chance against government troops, but are concerned with protecting themselves against mob action by Liberals.

The only "mob action by liberals" I fear are the elections.

 

[DaisyDay]

1. Repeal the NFA of 1934, including the further provisions of 1986.

That would certainly raise the kill rate for the mass shooters. Imagine what they could do with a machine gun - no need to aim! It's not just the mass shooters for glory, but I imagine that it would put whole neighborhoods in even greater jeopardy from rivaling gangs. It's not great for cops, either. Would be have to arm them with machine guns, too, in order to even things out?

2. Repeal the GCA of 1968

Why?

 

[98cwitr]

That would certainly raise the kill rate for the mass shooters. Imagine what they could do with a machine gun - no need to aim!

How? I can pull the trigger on a semi-auto at nearly the same rate with far greater accuracy. Also, in the event the American people find themselves facing a tyrannical government, and respecting the heart of 2A, we need all the firepower we can muster.

Why?

Because it's a gross and blatant infringement on our constitutional rights. As a law-abiding citizen, I should not have to be pigeonholed into purchasing property that is used to protect my family.

 

[Belk]

How? I can pull the trigger on a semi-auto at nearly the same rate with far greater accuracy. Also, in the event the American people find themselves facing a tyrannical government, and respecting the heart of 2A, we need all the firepower we can muster.

Which is it? They have greater firepower or they do not? You are trying to argue it both ways within the space of a sentence.

Because it's a gross and blatant infringement on our constitutional rights. As a law-abiding citizen, I should not have to be pigeonholed into purchasing property that is used to protect my family.

The courts would not seem to agree with your assessment.

 

[98cwitr]

Which is it? They have greater firepower or they do not? You are trying to argue it both ways within the space of a sentence.

Rate of fire does not equal accuracy or even presume it. Actually, there is a reverse effect, obviously. They have a higher rate of fire, but lower accuracy. Make sense?

The courts would not seem to agree with your assessment.

Court rulings and opinions can change over time.

 

[Belk]

Rate of fire does not equal accuracy or even presume it. Actually, there is a reverse effect, obviously. They have a higher rate of fire, but lower accuracy. Make sense?

I am well aware of the effect full auto has on accuracy. This does not answer my question. Does or does not a full auto weapon represent greater firepower?

Court rulings and opinions can change over time.

Very well. Show us where this has been declared unconstitutional.

 

[98cwitr]

I am well aware of the effect full auto has on accuracy. This does not answer my question. Does or does not a full auto weapon represent greater firepower?

Yes, whereas sheer firepower does not equal increased impact on target. Are you familiar with the term "suppressive fire?"

Very well. Show us where this has been declared unconstitutional.

"Shall not be infringed"

 

[Belk]

Yes, whereas sheer firepower does not equal increased impact on target. Are you familiar with the term "suppressive fire?"

I am. So you agree there is an advantage to full auto fire in certain situations?

"Shall not be infringed"

That is not a court declaration of this being unconstitutional and I do not find your personal opinion definitive.

 

[Arcangl86]

How? I can pull the trigger on a semi-auto at nearly the same rate with far greater accuracy. Also, in the event the American people find themselves facing a tyrannical government, and respecting the heart of 2A, we need all the firepower we can muster.



Because it's a gross and blatant infringement on our constitutional rights. As a law-abiding citizen, I should not have to be pigeonholed into purchasing property that is used to protect my family.

An m16 at full auto has a rate of fire of 700 rounds per minute. There is no way you can pull the trigger at anything like that rate.

 

[98cwitr]

I am. So you agree there is an advantage to full auto fire in certain situations?

Absolutely. There would be no reason to have or want a full auto unless just for the fun of it.

That is not a court declaration of this being unconstitutional and I do not find your personal opinion definitive.

My personal opinion is shared with another 5-6 million Americans and is backed by logical and reasonable understanding of why our founding fathers acknowledged the 2nd amendment as an inalienable right. Sure, we're probably a minority, but it does not diminish or discredit our plight.

 

[Belk]

Absolutely. There would be no reason to have or want a full auto unless just for the fun of it.

Then let us keep full auto weapons as something limited to a certain subset of people.

My personal opinion is shared with another 5-6 million Americans and is backed by logical and reasonable understanding of why our founding fathers acknowledged the 2nd amendment as an inalienable right. Sure, we're probably a minority, but it does not diminish or discredit our plight.

It is not shared by the opinion of those who are schooled in the law. That kind of undermines your arguments.

 

[FenderTL5]

that is not what the statistics show
80% of guns in crimes were fired by someone other than the original lawful registered buyer

This suggests to me that a large percentage of gun owners are not responsible gun owners.
locally As of September 11, this year 595 guns have been reported stolen in my city alone.
I tend to think that gun owners, whose gun is involved in a crime, without being reported as stolen or missing prior to the crime, should be charged and tried as an accessory.

so we require licensing (gun licenses & local state registration seems reasonable)

we punish irresponsibility (allowing potentially deadly firearms to be lost or stolen endangers other Americans' lives -- don't the Marines say "i am nothing without my rifle", there's are always at the ready yet never left lying around, humanly possible to do)

I agree that this is reasonable.
I would support liability insurance minimums as well.

 

[Erik Nelson]

This suggests to me that a large percentage of gun owners are not responsible gun owners.
locally As of September 11, this year 595 guns have been reported stolen in my city alone.
I tend to think that gun owners, whose gun is involved in a crime, without being reported as stolen or missing prior to the crime, should be charged and tried as an accessory.

I agree that this is reasonable.
I would support liability insurance minimums as well.

civil not criminal liability is another option

but not reporting the loss of a potentially life threatening weapon doesn't seem like responsible well regulated behavior

reporting should of course not be an undue imposition

but since up to 80% of guns in crime get into criminal hands via losses and thefts, those predict future gun violence

gun missing today implies soon to be used in crime tomorrow

law enforcement has a need to know?

 

[DaisyDay]

YOU are the business, because without people guns do zero harm.

Also without dogs, apparently.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...shoots-a-person-almost-every-year-in-america/

 

[Erik Nelson]

Registries lead to confiscation. My intent is that if you're licensed you can own zero guns or a hundred. The quantity is none of the government's business. YOU are the business, because without people guns do zero harm.

almost every gun purchase is already registered

law enforcement already has long lists of names

you mean one single national registry?