Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Breotan wrote:
So, by reading the first part of this bill, your 1911 is to be considered an Semiautomatic Assault Weapon?

Well, so much for "serious" gun control reform.

On the bright side they did eliminate the bayonet lug as a feature of an assault weapon, so historical firearms like certain muskets are no longer caught up in the madness


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I don't know. I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.

It's a wonderful thing then that no one is advocating for "a right to kill other people quickly"

 greatbigtree wrote:
I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.

And honestly, I can't understand willfully giving up ANY right I currently have, be they 1st, 2nd, 4th or whatever amendment protects them. It doesn't make sense to me to allow them to be taken by anyone.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, NOTHING in the proposed bill would have anything close to a significant impact on the vast majority of gun violence in the US. So laws designed to infringe on my rights which have no chance of actually fixing the issue they are nominally written to fix are to be ridiculed, as are those who support infringing on my rights for little to no gain.

 Alex C wrote:


Ignorant, paranoid, left-wing anti-gun fearmongering has been a boon for the firearm industry. There are no better salesmen.

Same for NRA dues. If the left could go just 10 or 15 years without introducing a single anti-gun bill at the local, state or federal level, the NRA would starve to death.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the firearms/ammo industry and NRA are paying bribes to left-wing politicians to get them to keep proposing anti-gun measures that will never even make it out of committee.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
So, by reading the first part of this bill, your 1911 is to be considered an Semiautomatic Assault Weapon?

Well, so much for "serious" gun control reform.

Does this mean we're going to see more Americans walking around with muskets?

44 mags baby. 44 mags.

 CptJake wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.

And honestly, I can't understand willfully giving up ANY right I currently have, be they 1st, 2nd, 4th or whatever amendment protects them. It doesn't make sense to me to allow them to be taken by anyone.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, NOTHING in the proposed bill would have anything close to a significant impact on the vast majority of gun violence in the US. So laws designed to infringe on my rights which have no chance of actually fixing the issue they are nominally written to fix are to be ridiculed, as are those who support infringing on my rights for little to no gain.

Last time I checked, murder is still illegal. Being able to possess guns vs being able to kill people with guns is not an Apples to Apples comparison.

 CptJake wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.

And honestly, I can't understand willfully giving up ANY right I currently have, be they 1st, 2nd, 4th or whatever amendment protects them. It doesn't make sense to me to allow them to be taken by anyone..

They'll quarter the King's troops and horses in my house over my cold, dead body.

 Breotan wrote:
So, by reading the first part of this bill, your 1911 is to be considered an Semiautomatic Assault Weapon?

I think my 1911 is safe because I didn't get a tactical rail. The only weapons that would be banned are my shotgun (barrel shroud + pistol grip), my AK, my AR, and possibly my PMR-30 (pistol with a rail and 30 round magazine).

That one's actually been used against police as well, that the state cannot order you to allow them to use your domicile as a stakeout location.

That case was thrown out, sadly.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.

And honestly, I can't understand willfully giving up ANY right I currently have, be they 1st, 2nd, 4th or whatever amendment protects them. It doesn't make sense to me to allow them to be taken by anyone..

They'll quarter the King's troops and horses in my house over my cold, dead body.

Exactly. Where are the all of the Third Amendment advocacy groups? #AllAmendmentsMatter

 greatbigtree wrote:
I don't know. I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.

I agree with you. The "right to kill other people" should only be protected when it's done up close and personal with a knife or garrote.

 Ouze wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
So, by reading the first part of this bill, your 1911 is to be considered an Semiautomatic Assault Weapon?

I think my 1911 is safe because I didn't get a tactical rail. The only weapons that would be banned are my shotgun (barrel shroud + pistol grip), my AK, my AR, and possibly my PMR-30 (pistol with a rail and 30 round magazine).

Your 1911 doesn't have a threaded barrel? I didn't think smooth bore 1911s were really that common.

wait what

 Breotan wrote:
Your 1911 doesn't have a threaded barrel? I didn't think smooth bore 1911s were really that common.

You may be confusing threaded with rifled

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
1) There seems to a nihilistic attitude prevalent in mass shootings these days - the me me me attitude, that was never there before.

I think it's hard to positively identify why mass shootings are on the rise. Possibly it's just a new outlet for something that's always been in society and had simply gone unnoticed (serial killers are a similar example).

2) Gun ownership and gun control is more politicised than ever before in American history? Why is this?

A number of reasons. Chief among them is that the NRA has become much more political. Prior to the late 70's, the gun debate was not a significant political issue, and the NRA was more of a 'national club of hunters' than an advocacy group. In the 60s for example the NRA supported proposed gun control laws (including bans) so long as they didn't infringe on hunters and a more general sense of gun ownership. In the late 70's and mid-80's though the NRA became more political, more powerful, and much larger as an organization and became an advocacy group. There's also a growing awareness of things like mass shootings, and of course the assassination of JFK and attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, that has motivated a more hardened stance among some to control guns, and naturally a push back against that reaction. I wouldn't say the debate is more politicised. I'd say it's more partisan. The gun debate has always been political, but it wasn't quite the 'red v blue' debate that it is now until the mid 80's and that change came of increasing political awareness on different sides of politics who pushed and pushed back against one another.

I have no evidence for it, but I'd propose that the growth of the US military also plays a role in the growth of 'gun love' in American culture. Prior to WWII, gun ownership was significantly lower in the US. Afterwards, many Americans became much more familiar with guns and most certainly the growth of the Armed Forces did play a big role in expanding sports and recreational shooting in the US. I'd posit that the growth of weapons familiarity has produced a much larger population that feels a vested interest in their gun rights because more people than previously are actually exercising them.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Your 1911 doesn't have a threaded barrel? I didn't think smooth bore 1911s were really that common.

You may be confusing threaded with rifled

Sigh. It's what I get for not finishing finish my morning coffee before posting.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Exactly. Where are the all of the Third Amendment advocacy groups? #AllAmendmentsMatter

I don't know. Sounds very Soft on Crime to me.

I agree with you. The "right to kill other people" should only be protected when it's done up close and personal with a knife or garrote.

This is why one should always have a brace of fully auto wiener dogs handy.

As my TShirt says:
Touch me and I will fight you.
Touch my Dachshund
And they'll never find your body.

 Ouze wrote:

possibly my PMR-30 (pistol with a rail and 30 round magazine).

Note that the proposed law covers any pistol with a detachable magazine, regardless of capacity. So yes, the PMR would have 2 "evil" features, but the capacity is not a factor, merely that the magazine is detachable.

jwr wrote:

 Alex C wrote:


Ignorant, paranoid, left-wing anti-gun fearmongering has been a boon for the firearm industry. There are no better salesmen.

Same for NRA dues. If the left could go just 10 or 15 years without introducing a single anti-gun bill at the local, state or federal level, the NRA would starve to death.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the firearms/ammo industry and NRA are paying bribes to left-wing politicians to get them to keep proposing anti-gun measures that will never even make it out of committee.

Are there any major or high profile gun control advocates distancing themselves from some of the more poorly thought out ideas or is it a case of one in all in?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Are there any major or high profile gun control advocates distancing themselves from some of the more poorly thought out ideas or is it a case of one in all in?

The more high profile groups have been jumping on this bandwagon, if not pressing for it previously: Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (who also called for anyone with a gun to be SWATed), Moms Demand Action (funded by Michael Bloomberg), Everytown for Gun Safety (funded by Michael Bloomberg), Mayors Against Illegal Guns (funded by Michael Bloomberg), the Brady Campaign, and many others.

Just as a point of interest the NRA spent ~$2.7 million on lobbying. Michael Bloomberg (he of the Soda Limit fame) claims to have spent $50 million, $6.7 million of which was for Mayors Against Illegal Guns

A good look at some of the lobbying efforts of the gun control side: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?cycle=2016&ind=Q12

Edit:

And gun rights: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q13++

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Just as a point of interest the NRA spent ~$2.7 million on lobbying. Michael Bloomberg (he of the Soda Limit fame) claims to have spent $50 million, $6.7 million of which was for Mayors Against Illegal Guns

According to the information D provided, the pro-gun lobby spent $8.4 million in 2015 while the anti-gun lobby spent $1.3 million.

The way I read those sites they only are accounting for $$$ spent on lobbying at the federal level and on candidates at the federal level.

 CptJake wrote:
The way I read those sites they only are accounting for $$$ spent on lobbying at the federal level and on candidates at the federal level.

So the relevant level when talking about the federal assault weapon ban bill?

The tabs here are interesting:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-7PdCI2NawSgP1QE-cGYVYedetYqepR-4jBweaJyqFo/edit#gid=2111600857

The outside spending by cycle and organization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The way I read those sites they only are accounting for $$$ spent on lobbying at the federal level and on candidates at the federal level.

So the relevant level when talking about the federal assault weapon ban bill?

Depends. If the $$$ are spent mobilizing local voting/lobbying at state and lower levels, local market ad buys, instead of lobbying congress critters than no, it is not a good/relevant level for measuring $$$ spent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another decent article on spending by both sides:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/gun-control-nra-election-spending_n_5921558.html

 CptJake wrote:
The tabs here are interesting:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-7PdCI2NawSgP1QE-cGYVYedetYqepR-4jBweaJyqFo/edit#gid=2111600857

The outside spending by cycle and organization.

According to your non-sourced numbers, the 'gun-rights' side outspends the gun control side by a large margin ($57M compared to $9.5M), which is the same trend the Federal lobbying numbers show as well.

If Bloomberg pends his 50mil the numbers will be interesting.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?

What do you mean by "military type" feature? Suppressors have many civilian applications

...

I mean military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?

What do you mean by "military type" feature? Suppressors have many civilian applications

...

I mean military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc.

The relevant section is as follows:

“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

“(i) A threaded barrel.

“(ii) A second pistol grip.

“(iii) A barrel shroud.

“(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

“(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

“(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

Note that a pistol with a second pistol grip is already regulated under the NFA so I'm not sure why that is singled out.

I also must concur with the previous posters in that "military type features" is a meaningless phrase with regards to pistols. It's not a matter of pedantry, like complaining about when a magazine is called a clip; it simply doesn't mean anything so I'm not sure how to answer that.


What is the hardon for barrel shrouds, man?

I also just noticed, as a side note, that bump-fire stocks would be banned.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I mean military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc.

A threaded barrel for a "silencer" is a legitimate civilian feature. It significantly reduces the noise and risk of hearing damage, prevents you from annoying your neighbors as much, etc. If anything we should be encouraging civilian gun owners to use suppressors on their weapons.

 djones520 wrote:
Unfortunately though, our 2nd Amendment is the only one that is ever under constant attack. Well, I'll back off on that a bit, because there does seem to have been a trend towards the suppression of free speech in the last decade, largely by those of the same political leaning as those who routinely attack our 2nd.

Sorry, this is so hilariously wrong that I have to go back a page and respond to it.

The second amendment is not the only one that is under attack. Are you at all familiar with efforts to undermine our protections against police abuse? You know, the ones that the police see as nothing more than an annoying obstacle that needs to be removed as quickly as possible? The current state of attack on them is somewhere around the point we'd be at if the second amendment had been "interpreted" to guarantee the right to own (but not carry in public) a pointy stick.

Attacks on the first amendment are not limited to the anti-gun side. In fact, most of the attacks are coming from the right, the same people who proudly declare that the second amendment is second only to the bible in importance. It isn't the liberals who are trying to enforce school prayers, Christian displays on government property, etc. And most of the left-wing "attacks" on free speech aren't constitutional issues. The first amendment protects you from censorship by the government. It does not, and was not intended to, protect you from having your speech criticized by your fellow citizens.

As every year more and more states successfully grind away at abortion - a right protected by the 14th amendment - I find it pretty hard to swallow that it's only ever the second amendment that's under attack.