Some random thoughts, with UBC and other restrictions potentially on the horizon

Before I begin, let's remember the following, the Second Amendment:

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.

I guess, technically, the right to keep and bear arms, whatever they might be, "shall not be infringed". But that all ended in 1934 with the Gun Control Act of 1934. Machine guns, short barreled rifles & shotguns, etc, became regulated. Regulation, no matter how you define it, is infringement.

So, we have already gone down that road.

Such a big deal is made about Universal Background Checks. Aren't all handguns, post 1899, subject to this already? Longarms, if a private sale, are not. These are a small portion of overall sales, so really they are not regulating all that much more, although it is nice to have the option of going to a gun show, and purchasing a long arm, should I desire to do so, without a paper trail, as a paper trail can lead to registration and potential confiscation. Personally, when I complete Form 4473, I consider that to be infringement, and I am surprised that is allowed and required, but it is.

BUT, this leads up to the whole point of this thread. IF you already have Gun Control Acts, which already have infringed the rights of law abiding citizens, why is such a big deal made about banning assault weapons? Again, like I said, I don't agree with paperwork and banning and infringement, but if this needs to be done, I don't have a problem with that per se.

And here's why? What purpose do they serve other than to fire many shots in a short period of time? Can anyone explain why they are necessary over other available firearms, other than they could be fun to shoot? No real sportsmanship there, no skill in improving target practice skills, no needed for hunting or even self defense. I would still keep my nose out of this except for I think that the cause was really really damaged or hurt when the term "assault" was used to define many such weapons.

How ever was that term used to describe such weapons and who coined it and why is it flagrantly abused? Like I said, it certainly does not help the cause, and using "assault" and "weapon" in the same sentence looks terrible to the general public, especially those with no firearms experience.

Again, some random thoughts, but valid points, I think.

 

"A People Armed" is the purpose of the that very deliberate Amendment to the American Constitution.
It has absolutely nothing to do with sportsmanship, hunting, and/or target shooting.

Such a People relegated to weapons so far beneath that of the common individual soldier as to be almost a century out of date, . . . are no longer citizens.
They are Subjects.
.

 

1. Clearly you've never seen, much less competed in a service rifle match. Of course ignorance and malice are the lifeblood of advocacy of racially invidious gun controls.
2. In a free society I don't have to justify myself to an overweening government. It's the other way around. The ONLY reason I need to do ANYTHING which doesn't violate the rights of others is, "Because I want to. "

 

Yes, but if you don't have to justify yourself to a government entity (second post) or if it's the people armed (first post), then how can anything be regulated, even sawed off shotguns or machine guns?

I shoot mostly vintage or antique firearms, often black powder. I'll admit I've never fired an assault weapon, nor do I care to. My experience is often, but not always, when at the range, the goal with assault weapons is to fire fairly rapidly and if most hit the target it's considered great shooting.

Again, any ideas as to the origin of the overused term "assault weapon", how it came to be, and who coined it? Sadly, the term "machine gun" even sounds much more benign.

I object to the paperwork involved in purchasing a post 1898 firearm, and, if it is even necessary, which is debatable, as mentioned in other posts, why is the make, model, and serial number of your purchase necessary, other than to create a database which, in time, could be used to regulate and then confiscate.

I don't know why a single shot .22 pistol shipped in 1913, for example, should have to be in a database as to make, model, and serial number, but such it is? If I was to use it with devious intent, I wouldn't get far.

 

Likewise, what is the purpose, or goal of any new regulation or infringement? Will it improve society in a discernible way, or is proposed and passed legislation merely a means to influence voters in coming elections? If we get an AWB and UBC tomorrow, what will we, as a society, get from the legislation? Will we be safer? Will violent crime be reduced? What is the purpose of restricting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens, will such legislation achieve that purpose, and is that purpose something worth serving?

 

Maybe that's left up to the states? I know in my state, one cannot legally purchase a handgun from someone else without going through an FFL. A handgun, being defined as post 1898, and if pre 1899, it's not a handgun, but an "antique".

 

I did a little bit of research. Merriam Webster states the term "assault weapon" dates from 1966, but I still am not sure who coined it and in what context.

The problem is that folks who know absolutely nothing about firearms at all, perhaps have never heard one, hear the term "assault weapon", and it sounds scary.

Each word, individually, is not exactly positive:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weapon

While we are at it, here's the definition of assault weapon:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault weapon

At least the term machine, which is 50% of machine gun, is fairly innocuous, and even positive:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine

 

Not sure if this is true, or not, but I just learned that the term Sturmgewehr is the term Adolph Hitler used to describe the MP43, which translates to "assault rifle". I had not heard that before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Not good.

Merriam-Webster suggests it dates from 1964, long after Hitler's demise:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

I think the latter source is more credible than the former.

 

Now that's surprising that the ATF does not define the term assault weapon, as the left wing media touts the assault weapons ban. How can you ban something that remains undefined?

 

Fudd

 

It has nothing to do with guns, it's all about thumbs.
And to be sure that you/we are under one...

I don't fear words or definitions. I fear the ideas.
The English describe a butter knife outside the home as an assault weapon. They are wrong. I will not adhere to their definition, just as I don't adhere to the left's definition, of most things...

Having tolerance for things you find objectionable results in freedom.
The left have no tolerance. They wish to "SWAT" any who object to them and their ideas with no retaliation. Which WILL happen, just as soon as They get those scary guns...

It is not about definitions. It is about control!

Also, slighting others at the speed or accuracy at which they shoot is impolite.
Would you not be affronted by complaints of the smoke from your Holy Black? Even if the holes are in the "right" spot.

 

I liken them to my signature line. Insert politicians for "learned men".

 

The use of semi-auto firearms include; self defense, home defense, ranchers shooting multiple prairie dogs (that dig holes that cattle step in and break their legs, a costly lost), shooting multiple coyotes going after live stock, and farmers shooting huge packs of feral hogs that destroy their crops. One guy even recently discussed having used his semi-auto to dispatch some feral hogs that charged out of the woods directly at his children.

And the primary reason of all being that is our Right. And if the government will violate Rights (as governments usually do) then the semi-auto rifle is for protection when an administration comes along and decides jews, Christians, blacks, gays, gingers or any other minority belong in gas chambers instead of their homes.
The #1 cause of unnatural death in history is Democide, death by one's own government. While societies can have short memories, some of us (millions actually) are still terrified at the idea that the most powerful government in the world is pushing so hard to make its citizens defenseless. And if they are willing to violate Rights to achieve that, why on earth would we think they won't violate any other Rights they want after that?

 

Needs repeating...

The most disturbing part is more and more humans prefers it. "Worthless Lazy" is the new "Upstanding Citizen".

 

The 2nd Amendment is the teeth of the Constitution. It exists in order to guarantee all the rest of our liberties against a tyrannical government. Recall that the American Revolution started when the government attempted to seize arms from the people...

 

I'll leave it to others to address the numerous other errors in the post, but I do want to address this claim.

There is a HUGE community of sport shooters who play in the speed-involved games, including USPSA/IPSC, IDPA, GADPA, and 3Gun/2Gun/Multigun. These games test the ability to deliver accuracy while under time pressure. These games have additional skill demands beyond the old-school stand-and-shoot games where accuracy is the sole measured component of performance.

These games require rapid shooting of large numbers of rounds. They effectively require semi-automatic guns with ample magazine sizes. Any claims that the use of semi-automatic guns with big magazines is divorced from "real sportsmanship" or "improving skills" is a demonstrably false, objectively wrong claim.

 

The term "assault rifle" is probably a reference to the Sturmgewehr. "Assault weapon" is a political invention coined by Josh Sugarmann in 1989. He defined it in this paper and openly declared that it was meant to be confusing:

 

The OP is looking at the world of the Second Amendment through a backwards telescope.

As long as it doesn't interfere with his shooting of black powder firearms he will gladly throw it under the bus.

 

Well no, not really. It seems though that semi automatic firearms are the most likely to be abused, and being called assault weapons really hurts the cause. If there is an AWB, then what next? But by having all this paperwork, such as Form 4473, it's easy to find out who has what, ban that which is desired, and confiscate that which is desired.

I think that the military should have assault weapons for defense and for use in foreign territories. But, if the populace cannot own them, it goes against the second amendment. But, I don't think a mass shooting event occurred until 1967 and, at least until that point, society had enough sense not to commit mass slayings.

Having said ALL this, more paperwork is not the answer, an AWB is not the answer, confiscation is definitely not the answer. This is simply a problem for which this is no answer. Bannings and confiscation create a black market. And, it's difficult to identify an individual with no criminal history or mental health deficiencies previously identified as one who will perform a devious act with intent to kill. For these reasons, unfortunately, there is no easy answer and these devious acts will continue indefinitely.

 

Well I don’t own any “assault weapons”. I do own several semi auto rifles that I bought/built for specific legal purposes. What anyone owns should not be any concern to others as long as the item is legal and no laws are broke in using them.

The idea of some saying they don’t care if one type of firearms is ban as long as others aren’t is the wrong attitude to have. The old saying “United we stand, divided we fall” is very true for the current political climate.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

People who think that mass slaying are more common today than in the pre-industrial past are hilariously ignorant. In fact, intra-society homicide rates were generally higher before the invention of repeating firearms, and higher than that before the invention of firearms at all, and higher than that before the widespread adoption of steel.

There's a very common, totally backwards assumption that, as individual weapon technology progresses, it tends to lead to more deaths. THAT IS FALSE. Stone-age societies with nothing more than clubs and spears kill themselves/each other at vastly higher rates than Americans. Orders of magnitude more.

And pre-1967 American history is full of mass slayings. Just because they weren't carried out with some particular instrumentality doesn't mean they didn't happen or were less terrible.

If you are interested in learning about this area, I recommend Steven Pinkers' Better Angels. Pinker is a Harvard academic who has done important work in a bunch of areas, but his Better Angels book covers this topic well at a layperson/survey level.