I think standard-capacity magazines in semiautomatic firearms are generally too big for reasonable civil use.
I also think that the potential benefit of having semiautomatic, ergonomic, easy-to-obtain weapons is outweighed by the frequent use of those weapons by people who were otherwise law-abiding to kill or injure a lot of people really quickly.
Besides, if one wanted to rebel, current arms controls have already closed off the most effective methods of legally doing so, and if we ever get to that point, effective weapons will become available.
I read your arguments and none of them are supported in fact at face glance. If you would like to elaborate on your stance i'm sure we would all welcome the clarification, but as stated all of your desired measures are cosmetic in nature, have for the most part been implemented in various places with none of the desired effect, and have no practical utility other than to remove the ability of honest citizens to exercise their rights. You will find opposition, most likely heated, to your suggestions because, to put it simply and with no disrespect, they are all feel-good nonsense that has only one purpose, and crime reduction isn't it.
So lets start at the top.
Why are these bans bad things?
I'll have to assume that when you say "Assault rifles" you mean all semiautomatic rifles, which is how my state has decided to define an assault rifle. If you'd like to clarify, I'd welcome that.
Quiet simply, the bans you are referring to do nothing more than remove legally owned property from honest citizens, or impede the ability of people to exercise their rights. A ban on semi auto rifles does not improve the quality of life, crime rate, or result in any net positive for our society, but rather, impact a great many people in a negative way both legally and financially, often making criminals out of formerly law abiding citizens.
You are asking us to give up something we paid a lot of money for, that we enjoy safely and legally, something that has a great deal of utility for us..... for nothing in return...for less than nothing, for criminal charges and financial distress.
I think standard-capacity magazines in semiautomatic firearms are generally too big for reasonable civil use.
Ok...and I do not think that they are too big for reasonable civilian use. Change my mind.
In fact, I find the suggestion disturbing, to be quiet honest. Who gets to decide "reasonable"? Name one other right in the Constitution that is subject to limits by an arbitrary judgement about what is "reasonable". How many HP in a car is "reasonable"? How many books in a month is it "reasonable' for me to purchase? How many news articles is it "reasonable" for me to read before I hit my limit?
What will one 20rd magazine do that two 10rd magazines won't? I challenge you to make a good argument that reducing magazine capacity reduces mass shootings, deaths during mass shootings, or murders by firearms. I can prove otherwise statistically, so i'll admit you are going to have to carry a lot of water here.
You are going to have to make a mighty good argument for my surrender of a substantial amount of moneys worth of magazines for the greater good. I quiet honestly don't think there is one.
Here is some further reading on the subject that you might find interesting
https://www.cato.org/publications/l...case-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions#full
I really like guns. I think they should be more available. I also don’t think we need easy, common ownership of assault weapons or weapons with more than eight rounds on board.
You really like guns, you think they should be more available, but you don't think we need easy, common ownership of assault weapons or weapons with more than eight rounds on board. Logically, this is untenable. I think you mean to say that you like certain types of guns, and think certain types of guns should retain the current level of restrictions while other types, such as assault rifles, are further restricted from their current status. If you mean to say that you would like to see less restrictions on certain types of guns, by all means, elaborate...what guns, and how would you like to see the restrictions loosened?
Anyways, I've already addressed the assault rifle thing, (no positive impact from a ban) and the magazine capacity thing (no positive impact from ban)
Besides, if one wanted to rebel, current arms controls have already closed off the most effective methods of legally doing so, and if we ever get to that point, effective weapons will become available.
Absolutely demonstrably false, as proven by insurgent tactics in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, just to mention a few instances. Besides, how do you expect "effective weapons to become available" if people have no access to effective firearms with which to take them? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but it doesn't sound like you are taking current world affairs into consideration.
My list of armed citizens effectively rebelling against government tyranny is a lot longer than your list of unarmed citizens effectively rebelling against government tyranny.
I actually think we should stop selling them, add existing semiautomatic weapons to the NFA roster, and then force would-be firearms owners to demonstrate safety, discipline and proficiency prior to being able to legally procure a weapon.
Ahh, I see. You do realize this is a more extreme position than any realistic and serious proposal yet floored by any U.S. politician, don't you, mr. "iloveguns"?
There are millions of semiautomatic firearms here in the U.S. so the discontinuation of new sales is hardly going to make a difference. The cat is out of the bag at this point.
Now, why should we add semiautomatic firearms to the NFA roster? What purpose would that serve, other than to effectively outlaw all law abiding citizens from MOST common and available firearms?
This is extremely unlikely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future, would be immediately struck down by the courts, and if actually forcibly implemented, would end very badly for this nation indeed. You are talking very nonchalantly about the very likely beginning of a major and violent civil war.
This statement alone makes your motives here suspect, as this is a far more oppressive regulatory suggestion than any current law on the book in any state in this nation.
After reading your comments about how you "really like" guns and "think they should be more available", then stating that all semiautomatic firearms should be placed on the NFA....well, that really sounds like you are being dishonest with us here.
You said this in another thread:
Liberals can like guns too. A lot of us do- the extremists don’t speak for us any more than Ted Nugent speaks for y’all. A lot of us aren’t even gun control advocates.
Do you see how the statements you have made in this thread contradict your prior statements? Your idea about the NFA list is about as extremist as it comes. Don't kid yourself. Your extreme views about further restrictions like 8 round magazine limits and the NFA listing of semiauto firearms means you are a gun control advocate
As far as your idea of "forcing" people to submit to onerous requirements...this forces me to keep my tone civil here. You won't get very far in this board with suggestions of how to "force" people to submit to government control over the free exercise of their rights. I have always said that encouraging people to take safety and handling courses, to know their local self defense laws, and to be proficient with their gun handling if they are going to carry is a good thing, but buddy, if you are going to try to "force" me to do anything simply because you feel its for the greater good absent of any data, you've got a task on your hands.
Then you have statements like this:
Most of us see the 2A and RKBA as absolutes, a right explicitly identified by the Founders to allow us to own, carry and use anything.
You know, it looks like you are trying to paint a pretty picture but your colors are starting to run. I'm pretty sure at this point that you don't include yourself in "us", and you don't really have a true idea of who "us" is, and what we believe, let alone why we believe it.