House to move toward vote on Assault Weapons ban - 1st time in decades

[GEM]

Gasoline is a weapon of war.

Here's the problem with that. Most people don't understand the psychology of concept formation. With any item there is the core usage and peripheral attributes. Folks say guns are tools and you can also kill with a pipe wrench.

However, the central attribute of a firearm is not a tool usage. It is as a weapon. There are some tangential uses of firearms as a tool. For example, some big shotguns that remove scale from blast furnances. But that's rare. The sporting uses are derivatives of lethal force training. Some of the lethal force applications were hunting but we've dealt with having control of hunting guns in a manner that voids the core of the 2A. However, much of the competition is lethally oriented, although some sporting organizations have tried to cover it up, as the use of octagonal pistol targets as compared to humanoid.

Thus, you cannot avoid the core concept of a firearm.

Now gasoline - it's core concept is as a fuel. Has it been used for war to fuel military vehicles - yes. Can it be made a gel for a flame thrower or bomb - yes. But that's not its prime usage. Like a car - you can mow down people as in Charlottesville or in Europe. But the core usage is travel and the lethal usage is a side effect. Fertilizer makes bombs and is now controlled to some extent.

A frying pan can be lethal - so what. That is a side effect.

Thus, again - trying to make a firearm nice by saying a side effect of another instrumentality is potentially lethal gets us nowhere in protecting the Constitutional usage.

Shooting a rodent or a target, running someone over - yep, happens - so what for this debate.

 

[LiveLife]

Let's see if the state bans go away with his eloquence.

I hope so ... We are waiting on several cases for CA alone:

• Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban)
• Rupp v Bonta (CA ban on certain assault weapon)
• Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban)
• Renna v Bonta (CA Handgun Roster)

Along with other states:

• Young v Hawaii (HI open carry)
• Bianchi v Frosh (MD assault weapon ban)
  
• ANJRPC v Grewal (NJ magazine ban)

 

[theotherwaldo]

I was raised by someone that believed that everything is potentially a weapon but weapons don't have to be used to kill.
Indeed, weapons are often used to prevent killing... .

 

[GEM]

Good point, then I wonder why so many supposed gun rights supporters are trying to deny that guns are weapons.

 

[rust collector]

OK, explain what they are made primarily for, if not for killing. (Justified killing, I might add.) This reminds me of the silly campaign to dub AR's "modern sporting rifles." It doesn't fool anyone. In fact, it's an insult to the intelligence.

"Weapons of war" are precisely what are protected by the 2nd Amendment. If you don't like the concept, join the antigunners in repealing the 2nd Amendment.

Where do mass murders of civilians and children fit into your Justified killing concept? You are invoking the 2d amendment to protect your ability to threaten or overthrow the government? Doesn't strike me as high road or a tenable argument to protect gun owners from infringement. Above all, does not speak to the original post, which is an account of action taken, not constitutional theory.

 

[GEM]

Since 'legal' governments have passed laws that justify and then enact the mass murder of their own children and civilians, that argument is specious. True the 'legal' government defined those members of their society as politically or ethnically/racially unworthy of protection. But it was technically legal. That was a post war defense.

If one looks at the racial policies of some of the United States and the armed resistance to them in terms of the civil rights activists who used firearms to protect themselves (many scholarly books on that) or pre Civil War resistance to the fugitive slave catchers in Northern states - one would see that an armed populace is important. If one studies the history of genocides by 'legal' goverments - the scholarly work is clear that a population unable to resist is victimized. I'm not just talking about the obvious example of the Third Reich, there are others.

Here's a quote:

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)"

From a known liberal no less. I see nothing in our discussion that suggests the murder of innocent civilians. It is true that in war, innocents are killed - it is unfortunate. That they might be killed is a good reason not to resist tyranny and a good reason to ban thse guns? The USA burned to death more than 100,000 Japanese civilians one night. Sherman marched to the sea. War is hell. Perhaps, those who want tyranny and we certainly have them now would learn that it is not so easy to enforce.

BTW, check out the pro Nazi organizations in the USA before WWII. They were not trivial. Given the right circumstances, it could happen here in some form.

 

[Walkalong]

I've never killed anything with any of my "assault rifles" and I doubt that I ever will.
What's with you and killing?

That's one of the antis talking points........ "only good for killing" "made for killing" etc.

 

[GEM]

That is true. They try to focus on the misuse of the firearms. However, trying to minimize their nature isn't going to work either. Especially when you try with terms like 'modern sporting rifles' or suggest applications such a hunting as primary. As I pointed out sports and hunting application quickly can be used to neutralize the guns. Locked up in the house as mandatory or locked up at the gun club. The UK, Japan, other countries have such rules. Not our type of RKBA.

You can make the SD, defense against tyranny case without looking like a crazy.

 

[Walkalong]

BTW, check out the pro Nazi organizations in the USA before WWII. They were not trivial. Given the right circumstances, it could happen here in some form.

As are the communists in our midst. Only thing stopping either group are sane people voting against that sort of thing, but yes, it can happen, anywhere, if we are not vigilant.

Never agree to give up your arms, it's the first thing governments who want complete control do, disarm the opposition, then run all over them, but they also run all over the ones who helped/voted for them.

We don't ant either side with full control, and we damn sure don't want Socialism or Communism, which some politicians are pushing. Wake up folks.

 

[Walkalong]

You can make the SD, defense against tyranny case without looking like a crazy.

Agreed, and we don't always do a good job of it, the opposition is good at making us look like idiots.

 

[GEM]

I agree the extremes of the left are a threat to freedom. I just happen to be reading a book on the proNazi organizations in the USA before WWII. The NYS law that you have to turn over your free speech expressions to the authorities is not a positive talking point for the left gun banners.

 

[matttric]

But why worry about it?

it’s more productive to find some cash (trade etc) and buy one More gun or accessories.

If they decide - to receive good 'publicity' - that future imports of the Czechpoint VZ-58 (like mine) will Not have a threaded muzzle, bayo lug, or a pistol grip, oh well......

The reason to worry is:
1) they will update the definition of “assault rifle” to capture the modern characteristics
2) even if they don’t “take” yours, preventing new ones from being made stops innovation. The AR15 platform has become the most popular rifle in the US post the ban because we were able to buy them, thus giving feedback to manufacturers. A ban prevents that, and advancements cease to happen
3) handcuffs our military. The US, as well as many other allies, have advanced weaponry, because those companies make and test products on us first, then sell to the gov’t. If there is a ban on AR 15/10 style weapons, it becomes very difficult and expensive for companies like DD, Ruger, etc to develope new rounds, new capabilities, etc and offer them to the gov’t for sale. We would be halting our military weapons growth significantly.

 

[illinoisburt]

For all the naysayers around, the slippery slope in government is real though it goes by the name of incrementalism. We have seen it play out in full fashion in many states already. A law is passed which bans a class of firearms while grandfathering existing one or exempting some features from regulation. The public is given the explanation about crime, reasonableness, and 'for the children'. Wait a short period of time and it becomes obvious the supposed benefit was not achieved (crime stays up, a mass shooting happens, children are still vulnerable) and the law is "full of terrible loopholes" which must be fixed. Whatever exemptions or grandfathering was there is now a dangerous loophole which must be corrected because the loophole causes harm. We then see a rinse and repeat as new restrictions are adopted which somehow never seem to actually fix the problems they were sorely needed to address.

 

[wbm]

We are at war with people that desire the removal of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. There is
no reasoning with them. Eventually, as more and more of our population resides in urban areas, they will achieve their goal. "The problem with the Country is the city."

 

[citizenconn]

We are at war with people that desire the removal of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. There is
no reasoning with them. Eventually, as more and more of our population resides in urban areas, they will achieve their goal. "The problem with the Country is the city."

I was just at the LGS picking up some transfers today and it was jam-packed. Most still seemed to be first time gun owners. About 2 dozen people checked out while I was waiting and everyone but me was getting an AR or a Glock. I've got enough ARs to supply the Rooftop Koreans so I was getting a couple threaded bolt action .300 BLK rifles that I'm putting in chassis stocks and a Colt 1911. Come at me ATF.

 

[Ignition Override]

matttric:

When I said “why worry…”, the intention was that if people vote in every local and national election, contribute to a Pro Sec. Amendment organization, contact their representatives,

—-any other time spent being distracted by it might be unproductive.

If we were not concerned, we would not be reading this topic, and would not be a seasoned member of "AKfiles."

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Temporarily. Prices will skyrocket like NFA items did, keeping them out of more peoples hands because they simply cannot afford them.

Yep.

And the goal of this bill isn't outright elimination. It's fair to say that the goal of all such bills has never been outright elimination. However, the long term collective goal of ALL gun control legislation is, in fact, elimination.

This is merely a continuation of a decades/generations long attack with that in mind.

So...if outright elimination isn't the goal, what is the short term effect? The short term effect will be the adverse market effects which will heavily weigh on gun owners. There will be more firearms which will be illegal for citizens to purchase and related items associated with the affected firearms will skyrocket in price. I also imagine ammunition will be somewhat adversely affected at some point during this.

Just taking the obvious market impact out of the picture, such as a run on affected firearms, components, and ammunition which will cause yet ANOTHER radical shortage, the long term effect may well be higher overall market prices for other firearms.

This will adversely impact people's budgetary concerns with respect to firearms.

We're already seeing this from other actions over the last few decades. Proportionally speaking, for example, the market-stable prices of ammunition is LESS affordable in recent years than it was in the 90s. Even though I make significantly more money now than I did then, the simple fact of the matter is that dropping $10 or $20 for a hundred round box of WWB in 9mm or .45 acp respectively back then had a SMALLER impact on my budget than it does in these times.

And while prices now are better than they were a couple years ago over the last round of political bruhaha, the fact of the matter is that even the restabilized market prices for ammunition following each politically driven shortage is even higher than it was before.

Combine that with other market factors adversely impacting our budgets (food and gas prices soaring, parts and repair costs soaring, etc.) and firearms related items are even MORE adversely impacted as a result. When it costs people an extra $60 or more to tank up their vehicles, when their food budgets now run hundreds more a month, etc., firearms related budget items get cut out.

That's the effect of legislation like this. It's meant to be cumulative over the long term.

 

[wbm]

It's meant to be cumulative over the long term.

Yes it is. They enact laws with "intended consequences"...red flag, hate speech, hate crimes. Who puts the definition to those terms?

 

[Capybara]

Gun control is classist and racist and always has been. It's no coincidence that women of color are one of the fastest growing segments of Americans since 2019 to arm up and begin taking handgun classes and CCW classes.
Just put yourself in the mid of a Leftist gun grabber, women of color arming themselves is your worst nightmare, you are losing your formerly most vocal, best PR for gun grabbing base. After the NYSRPA Opinion, gun grabbers
are desperate and terrified and people who desperate and terrified perpetrate increasingly vile acts.

Since I am a CCW holder in the state of California, Gavin Newsom and AG Rob Bonta decided it would be a good idea to intentionally doxx me.
All of my personal information, CCW #, SS#, address, guns I own was all put out there for the criminals and gang bangers to go to town.
For those of you in America, the antis have literally declared WAR on law abiding gun owners. Get ready for it, prepare for desperate and ridiculously
unlawful and Unconstitutional attacks because they know they are losing their death grip on control of America politically in 2022 and 2024, unless they
cheat as they usually do, which will cause even more chaos because the cheating will have to be so open and egregious that America will realize we have
become a third world hellhole because that's how elections go in dictatorships. They have to achieve their end of civilian disarmament while they can.

 

[theotherwaldo]

They are only trying to disarm the law-abiding.
The use of a firearm in a criminal act is being decriminalized in these solidly blue areas..

 

[Mark_Mark]

As are the communists in our midst. Only thing stopping either group are sane people voting against that sort of thing, but yes, it can happen, anywhere, if we are not vigilant.

Never agree to give up your arms, it's the first thing governments who want complete control do, disarm the opposition, then run all over them, but they also run all over the ones who helped/voted for them.

We don't ant either side with full control, and we damn sure don't want Socialism or Communism, which some politicians are pushing. Wake up folks.

in history, Tyrants always take the guns 1st, for safety, then socially shame the people into submission. It’s happened time and time and time again. A modern day look at this repeat history, look what happens when 1 person has the power, Canada & China. Our founding father didn’t even trust themselves with power. And They wrote the 2nd Amendment to keep governments hand away from our guns!!!

Agree, don’t give up your guns!

 

[AlexanderA]

in history, Tyrants always take the guns 1st,

Actually, it's the opposite. The first thing that tyrants do is arm their own followers. Weapons possession is a zero-sum game. You are stronger if you are armed, but your opponent is disarmed. Would-be dictators have known this throughout history.

That's why the antigunners' calls for domestic disarmament ring hollow. It all boils down to who they want disarmed. The general assumption is that the Right has more guns than the Left. Therefore, it is felt, a general disarmament scheme would harm the Right more than the Left. But the real hardcore leftists love their guns. The reality is that both sides are arming themselves furiously. The antigun movement is a mere footnote in all this. We are heading for bad times in this country.

 

[Mark_Mark]

Actually, it's the opposite. The first thing that tyrants do is arm their own followers. Weapons possession is a zero-sum game. You are stronger if you are armed, but your opponent is disarmed. Would-be dictators have known this throughout history.

That's why the antigunners' calls for domestic disarmament ring hollow. It all boils down to who they want disarmed. The general assumption is that the Right has more guns than the Left. Therefore, it is felt, a general disarmament scheme would harm the Right more than the Left. But the real hardcore leftists love their guns. The reality is that both sides are arming themselves furiously. The antigun movement is a mere footnote in all this. We are heading for bad times in this country.

I’m in Seattle and the antiguner armed themselves during the 2020 Chaz/Chop riots. I personally took a antiguner business owner to the range and showed him the rules of gun safety because he was just leaving a loaded gun in his kitchen draw with children in his house. Anyways, everything settled down in Seattle and the antiguner who were afraid of their own shadows are back to being Anti-Gunners again. How quickly they forget that they were pooping in their pants scared at the armed thugs smashing their window, vandalized their homes, and threatening them with reparation taxes.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Actually, it's the opposite. The first thing that tyrants do is arm their own followers. Weapons possession is a zero-sum game. You are stronger if you are armed, but your opponent is disarmed. Would-be dictators have known this throughout history.

That's why the antigunners' calls for domestic disarmament ring hollow. It all boils down to who they want disarmed. The general assumption is that the Right has more guns than the Left. Therefore, it is felt, a general disarmament scheme would harm the Right more than the Left. But the real hardcore leftists love their guns. The reality is that both sides are arming themselves furiously. The antigun movement is a mere footnote in all this. We are heading for bad times in this country.

That's a given (that tyrants arm their supporters), because this is simply the flip side of the same coin. Disarming the general population defacto means those in power are the only ones remaining with the arms. It's not that they necessarily "armed" their followers, because they were armed all along, often by the very words which act to disarm the general population.

Look, for example, at all the exemptions written into gun control laws and how many of them exempt government agencies. Laws that don't apply to law enforcement, retired law enforcement, judges, natural resources officers, members of the armed forces while on duty, certain guards engaged in the protection of US Government property, people deputized under some agencies, prison guards on the job, etc.

 

[herrwalther]

I am somewhat taken aback as to how many posters so far have said "this won't pass." Really? Senate is a 50-50 split between R and D. Normally that would make me bite my nails about gun control. But the fact that 10 signed on to the Cornyn gun control package already shows a willingness for Republicans to sell gun rights down the river. So a new AWB has already passed the House, a more realistic 60-40 division in the Senate, and a Democrat in the White House who ran on a gun control platform. I think this has a very real chance of passing. The Heller decision was in 2008 and the Buren decision was just a few weeks ago. I do not even see the Supreme Court helping fight this ban until it has gone through all the lower appellate courts a few times. I know how my Congress critters are going to vote on this, against, and I am still emailing them every chance I get.

EDIT TO ADD: We also have the first ATF director since 2013. Nominated by Biden and confirmed 48 to 46. Just another thing that doesn't help gun rights.