FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
Yeah . . . “possibly” intractable.You are missing the point and we are talking past each other.
I ALREADY AGREED that, in everything BUT NAME it is an assault rifle. The problem is that THE LAW doesn’t recognize it as an assault rifle, due to the very thing you describe….it is semi-automatic.
The “semi-automatic” is all important, in legal terms, in trying to stop their sale, because it is the exact same mechanism (legally) that is in most handguns sold…and it would be practically impossible to ban handguns.
This is exactly what I’m talking about…I’d love nothing more than the ban on “assault-like” long guns, but how? How do you do it? How do you write it? How do you enact it? Even some Democratic lawmakers would balk at trying to delve into the “semi-automatic” realm, so you have almost no political desire to go there.
These are the intractable problems you face when discussing firearms in America, because the entire argument is pedantic. The entire argument revolves around what a certain part, or mechanism, does, and whether it can be made illegal. And, it is the minutiae of the argument, especially on the pro-gun side, that drives the debate into the brick wall every time.
In the meantime, we have mass murders (4 or more people per incident) happening repeatedly, often involving these guns, but also many not involving them at all. We even struggle with magazine size, because it is usually only the most liberal states that can even pass a law limiting magazine size.
High-capacity magazine ban - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Most normal semi-automatic handguns have magazines that hold between 6 and 12 bullets, but even a common Glock 19 (standard 9mm handgun) has a 15 round magazine. With one in the chamber, that’s 16 bullets. That would make it illegal in some states. There are millions of people who think that is ridiculous, while there are millions of others who wonder what kind of mayhem one person can enact with 16 bullets!
So, to end this, I agree wholeheartedly with your disgust and dismay, but I find screaming into the abyss to be a waste of time. Trying to educate people on the common terms, the common language, and the common issues that push, and often derail, the gun issue in America is, to me, far more productive. Here, I’m trying to ensure loose language and throw away platitudes and sentiments don’t pollute or muddy the waters of a serious, possibly intractable, problem in this country.
Now, I’ll fuck off!
I agree that screaming into the abyss is a waste of time, but I find the arguments of many reasonable gunowners a little disingenuous because to fix the problems they agree exist also requires that they suffer. Just as the nation hungers for reasonable conservatives to stand up and fix what has happened to their party befouled by a lunatic death cult, so the gunless rely on responsible gun owners to lead the charge against the terrorist-supporting organization the NRA has become, demand radically aggressive licensing and regular testing requirements, unannounced safe storage checks (as fire departments do to my property to ensure brush is clear from my home during fire season), significant taxes on weapons and firearms ala tobacco, and punitive penalties for rules violators (ala DUI in seemingly every country but the US). There obviously aren’t enough of us, so we need help from some of them. Why don’t we see more of it?
I think I already know why.
As with reasonable conservatives, I doubt it’s happening any time soon. Pandora’s box and all that. So what’s the option for non-conservatives? Vote each and every Republican out. Guess what option “reasonable” gun owners leave the gunless? Screaming into the abyss.
Last edited: