But what gives the NRA its influence? It’s influence is not solely through money as folks such as Bloomberg can match it. And I do not think it is through the gun manufacturing industry because of how small it is. What gives the NRA the influence it has in America is that, to a good degree, the NRA is America. It isn’t just it’s membership, it is a sizeable number of non-members who also support its basic mission.No, it isn't. As Calvin Coolidge once said "The business of America is business" meaning Ameica is about making capital, i.e. profit and having the freedom to pursue happiness, your happiness. As to Americans who own guns, they're in the minority in this country and and shrinking. Roughly 70 million citizens (out of a total population of well over 300 million) own at least one of the three classifications of guns. That hardly classifies gun owners as a majority, so no the NRA isn't America. It has however become a sounding board for the right wing nuts to spew their venom a la Ted Nugent. The NRA contributes 85% of its 22 million dollar campaign contributions to he republican party. The NRA's original Raison d'être was to promote the safe use of firearms and to teach sharpshooting to the post World War II gun enthusiasts. It has strayed from that simple mission. contrast this with the latest NRA extravaganza meeting in Texas. Wing nuts from every corner of the AM dial showed up to spew their hatred of the strawman evil government with La Pierre leading the parade, despite the fact that 90% of NRA members are ok with background checks. The NRA's mission has become lost in the anti-progressive hate speech of the extreme right. But it does have some valid talking points: 1. Enforce the laws already in existence 2. Guns do deter crime, the stats support this 3. Most legitimate gun owners obey the state and federal statutes 4. State hunting laws protect and actually promote the proliferation and control of wildlife 5. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment as written by Madison was to protect the citizens from a military coup, and we have plenty of historical examples to support this contention. Guns, whether a long gun, a machine gun or a hand gun have a deadly purpose. We may use them for sport e.g. Hunting or target shooting (one of my pastimes) but they were designed to kill, whether it be a human or an animal. That is the ultimate purpose of the gun. So yes they should be regulated and safely used. Closing the loopholes will help, e.g. Gun transfers. The majority of felons who committ crimes with a hand gun bought them from, or stole them from a friend or relative. I can purchase any type of weapon from a gun shop or pawn shop as I live in a Tristate area and can transport that weapon across three state lines then sell it or give it to a friend who could commtt a crime then dispose of the weapon. That should not in any way be legal. Closing these loopholes already on the books will help but that takes more federal funding and the neocons want to limit the budget. You can't have it both ways. Want to keep guns on the shelf? Then tighten the laws and make background checks mandatory then enforce them. Want to own a semiautomatic or fully automatic weapon? Ok apply for an FFL and be fingerprinted annually. Teachers are. I'm fingerprinted every five years and my prints are on file with the state and federal governments. One of my friends, a collector of historical automatic weapons updates his permit annually and it can be revoked at any time. I see no problem with the federal government regulating the use of military style weapons to civilians. Neither the Aurora shooter nor the disturbed kid that took 26 lives in Sandy Hook would have had access to a rapid fire weapon. And while I know no law is one hundred percent fail safe, it could have at least deterred the carnage that occurred due to a rapidly fired weapon. So, yeah I'm in favor of stricter gun laws as a means of deterrence. No ex-felon for example should EVER have his/her right to own a firearm restored. And there are many others to numerous to mention, besides, you know them anyway. You've made some valid points on this forum but there is no defense to the free and unrestricted access to any firearm for citizens without a stricter form of control and enforcing background checks is a good start. and the NRA needs to return to it's basic premise of teaching gun safety and not allow itself to be a bully pulpit for right wing nuts and teabaggers with their own political axe to grind. Cap't Jack
Somewhere, in this thread or another gun thread I warned people about getting caught up in the "assault rifle" argument. Pro-gunners love this avenue because they can take the debate into semantics and distraction. By nature they like talking about guns and generally know or think they know more about guns than your average "gun control advocate".I'd argue it's the opposite. Gun control people love this avenue because the media picks up and uses the term and it is used to fool much of the general public. In addition, quite a few politicians whose constituents are against gun control don't themselves know much about the issue, and thus cannot adequately defend their position.
Above we see a poster attempting successfully to label guns and their purposes, justifying the need for types of guns, and using misleading statements about how guns are all the same.(thus justifying the ownership of some guns in the light of all guns.) There are guns that are specifically designed to kill PEOPLE!! That is why any govt supplies it's armies with these type guns and not hunting rifles.Using misleading statements? I think I have been very clear. I have pointed out how misleading the statements made by many of the gun control proponents are. You seem to have completely ignored my argument and also do not understand the right to keep and bear arms. 1) There are not guns that are designed to kill people. It's not as if you have a "hunting rifle" that can be used to hunt deer, birds, coyotes, hogs, bears, etc...and then you need some kind of special gun to kill people. People are animals. If the gun can be used to kill the upright walking ape called a human, it can be used to kill most any other animal that is of a similar size and weight of a human and vice-versa. Are you aware that some of your most common ammunition used for hunting, such as .223, .30-06, and .308 are all military in origin? 2) Even if there were guns specifically designed to kill people, those are the guns that the Second Amendment would explicitly protect. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. Right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting. 3) The U.S. military DOES, in fact, supply its soldiers with hunting rifles. For example, the Remington 700 bolt-action rifle, one of the most popular hunting rifles in existence, is also used by the Army and the Marine Corps (and law enforcement) as a sniper rifle. By default, if you have any kind of big-game hunting rifle, you have what is a high-powered sniper rifle. In addition, the AR-15, of which the military uses the assault-rifle version, the M16, is a fine small-game hunting rifle.
1.Basic infantry assault rifles of any nation are semi-automatic or fully automatic. Most are fully automatic, but the debate between semi and full is ridiculous.No it isn't. Semiautomatic guns, and guns functionally identical to semiautomatic, have been around a long time before "assault rifles" were ever invented. They were in use by civilians long before they came into widespread use by the military. The Defense Intelligence Agency via its Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." Semiautomatic rifles do not fit this definition as they lack the automatic fire capability. In addition, it also shows the untruth in the term "high-powered assault rifle" as there really is no such thing. And if a military issues its soldiers semiautomatic rifles, they are not assault rifles.
Pro control advocates: STOP GETTING CAUGHT UP IN THIS ARGUMENT! As we have seen psychos do plenty of mass damage with semi-automatic weapons. Columbine, Newtown, Aurora, etc etc etc...THose were all semi-automatic weapons. Their rate of fire(bullets per minute) is deadly enough to make the argument about full automatic vs. semi auto-matic redundant. Plenty of armies and infantry prefer semi auto fire for accuracy and target selection. Plus it conserves ammo! But it shoots as fast as one would need it to.Yes, plenty of armies like them for this reason. So do law enforcement, and so do civilians. Again, it is your right to keep and bear ARMS, i.e. the basic tools of warfare. Militaries also like 9mm handguns, .45 caliber handguns, 12-gauge pump-action shotguns, and bolt-action hunting rifles for sniper use. Again, war is not just something that individual countries get into with one another, it is something that individuals can make on one another as well. It is also something that oppressive governments can make on individuals as well. And most gun violence occurs with handguns.
2. All armies need high capacity magazines. That's 20 or more cartridges in one clip, box, magazine, drum or whatever. This reduces the amount of time one needs to reload, and allows the shooter to put more bullets downrange faster. That's with semi-auto fire or full auto fire..there is no difference in terms of killing power.Who defines what constitutes a "high-capacity magazine?" According to gun control proponents, it's any magazine of over ten-round capacity. Why? Because they arbitrarily decided to make it that. They can define it however they want to, as the New York State government just did.
One doesn't need high capacity magazines for hunting or for target shooting. Ever!And once again, the right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting or target shooting. No more than the First Amendment is only to protect your right to write romance novels or comedies.
No, it isn't. As Calvin Coolidge once said "The business of America is business" meaning Ameica is about making capital, i.e. profit and having the freedom to pursue happiness, your happiness. As to Americans who own guns, they're in the minority in this country and and shrinking. Roughly 70 million citizens (out of a total population of well over 300 million) own at least one of the three classifications of guns. That hardly classifies gun owners as a majority, so no the NRA isn't America. It has however become a sounding board for the right wing nuts to spew their venom a la Ted Nugent.Number of gun owners has nothing to do with those who support the right to keep and bear arms. You might as well be saying that only homosexuals will support same-sex marriage or that only women will support right-to-choose. Just because someone doesn't engage in a particular activity that is a protected right doesn't mean that they will not nevertheless support that right. Whether gun owners are in the minority and shrinking is irrelevant. Back when gun ownership as a percentage of the population was greater than it is now, support for the right to keep and bear arms was actually lower than it is today. The majority during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s saw gun ownership as mostly just about hunting and that was that.
The NRA contributes 85% of its 22 million dollar campaign contributions to he republican party.And labor unions and Planned Parenthood primarily endorse the Democratic party. Why is that? Because the Republican party is usually bent on oppressing what the labor unions and Planned Parenthood believe in. Well the Democratic party is usually bent on oppressing gun rights. So it shouldn't be a shocker that the NRA will primarily support Republicans.
The NRA's original Raison d'être was to promote the safe use of firearms and to teach sharpshooting to the post World War II gun enthusiasts. It has strayed from that simple mission.No it hasn't. It continued to teach the safe use of firearms and shooting skills. Also, the NRA dates back to before World War II.
contrast this with the latest NRA extravaganza meeting in Texas. Wing nuts from every corner of the AM dial showed up to spew their hatred of the strawman evil government with La Pierre leading the parade, despite the fact that 90% of NRA members are ok with background checks. The NRA's mission has become lost in the anti-progressive hate speech of the extreme right.Wingnuts will show up at any event. Look at the various left-wing anti-war protests during the Bush years. And when we see what the government has done with the IRS and the Justice Department, it is prone to abuse of power. As for the 90% statistic, I've mentioned this already: Saying that 90% support background checks is like saying that a majority support balancing the budget or fixing the healthcare system. Does this mean a majority support the particular plans the Republican or Democratic party will put forward? Of course not. Similarly, 90% did not support that particular background check bill. Similarly, a lot of people asked on the issue may not understand what is involved with enforcing universal background checks.
But it does have some valid talking points: 1. Enforce the laws already in existence 2. Guns do deter crime, the stats support this 3. Most legitimate gun owners obey the state and federal statutes 4. State hunting laws protect and actually promote the proliferation and control of wildlife 5. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment as written by Madison was to protect the citizens from a military coup, and we have plenty of historical examples to support this contention. Guns, whether a long gun, a machine gun or a hand gun have a deadly purpose. We may use them for sport e.g. Hunting or target shooting (one of my pastimes) but they were designed to kill, whether it be a human or an animal. That is the ultimate purpose of the gun. So yes they should be regulated and safely used. Closing the loopholes will help, e.g. Gun transfers. The majority of felons who committ crimes with a hand gun bought them from, or stole them from a friend or relative. I can purchase any type of weapon from a gun shop or pawn shop as I live in a Tristate area and can transport that weapon across three state lines then sell it or give it to a friend who could commtt a crime then dispose of the weapon. That should not in any way be legal. Closing these loopholes already on the books will help but that takes more federal funding and the neocons want to limit the budget. You can't have it both ways. Want to keep guns on the shelf? Then tighten the laws and make background checks mandatory then enforce them. Want to own a semiautomatic or fully automatic weapon? Ok apply for an FFL and be fingerprinted annually. Teachers are. I'm fingerprinted every five years and my prints are on file with the state and federal governments. One of my friends, a collector of historical automatic weapons updates his permit annually and it can be revoked at any time. I see no problem with the federal government regulating the use of military style weapons to civilians. Neither the Aurora shooter nor the disturbed kid that took 26 lives in Sandy Hook would have had access to a rapid fire weapon. And while I know no law is one hundred percent fail safe, it could have at least deterred the carnage that occurred due to a rapidly fired weapon. So, yeah I'm in favor of stricter gun laws as a means of deterrence. No ex-felon for example should EVER have his/her right to own a firearm restored. And there are many others to numerous to mention, besides, you know them anyway. You've made some valid points on this forum but there is no defense to the free and unrestricted access to any firearm for citizens without a stricter form of control and enforcing background checks is a good start. and the NRA needs to return to it's basic premise of teaching gun safety and not allow itself to be a bully pulpit for right wing nuts and teabaggers with their own political axe to grind.A few points: 1) Define "military-style weapons." You say those should be strictly regulated. Why? What exactly even is a "military-style weapon?" Every basic firearm used by civilians is a military weapon. 2) To own an automatic fire weapon requires some very strict background checks and fingerprinting already. 3) The government has no right to require fingerprinting or any database of gun owners regarding guns in common use. It is your right to keep arms, not a privilege granted by the government. 4) I do not for one second think that a database kept by the government would not become subject to abuse. There are too many hell-bent on seeking to outlaw guns and we have seen already with the IRS and Justice Department scandals examples of governmental corruption. 5) Enforcing background checks is fine, but to perform universal background checks right now would ultimately require the creation of a federal firearm registry.
Logic Man-I'd argue it's the opposite. Gun control people love this avenue because the media picks up and uses the term and it is used to fool much of the general public. In addition, quite a few politicians whose constituents are against gun control don't themselves know much about the issue, and thus cannot adequately defend their position.I want all semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols of any caliber that have an integral or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds banned. It's that simple. Seeing as how they are not yet banned, gun control advocates are losing the argument due to misinformation.
Using misleading statements? I think I have been very clear. I have pointed out how misleading the statements made by many of the gun control proponents are. You seem to have completely ignored my argument and also do not understand the right to keep and bear arms.I don't care what you think in this regard. I am familiar with your tired argument. I don't care about your interpretation of our right to bear arms.
1) There are not guns that are designed to kill people. It's not as if you have a "hunting rifle" that can be used to hunt deer, birds, coyotes, hogs, bears, etc...and then you need some kind of special gun to kill people. People are animals. If the gun can be used to kill the upright walking ape called a human, it can be used to kill most any other animal that is of a similar size and weight of a human and vice-versa.The following is a very, very short list of guns that were designed to kill people: Thompson Submachinegun, Colt 1911 .45 auto, AR-15/M16, AK-47, Browning BAR, Practically all pistols and revolvers. None of these guns were designed to kill apes or animals. They were designed and manufactured to supply armies and police with weapons to shoot people with. PERIOD! The list of examples I provided is very short.
Are you aware that some of your most common ammunition used for hunting, such as .223, .30-06, and .308 are all military in origin?Yes I am. What's your point? I want guns that shoot that ammo(and many many more calibers) and have a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds, and are semi-automatic-banned! By pointing out your little ammo story here, you reveal your deception. This shows how military type weaponry has slowly seeped into the civilians hands. After-all we don't see the Military using common hunting rounds such as .20 gauge, .22-250, .22 LR, .243 etc etc. .223, 30-'06, and .308 are some of the most popular calibers(or their metric equivalent) in the World for infantry weapons. They also sell very well in the US civilian market where people use them in their privately owned military or military type weapons. These weapons at a minimum are semi-automatic, and have a magazine capacity of 10 rounds or more. These weapons need to be banned! They are sometimes the type weapons that are used in psychotic killing sprees. They make or can make the killing spree death count go much higher.
2) Even if there were guns specifically designed to kill people, those are the guns that the Second Amendment would explicitly protect. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. Right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting.I don't care what your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is.
3) The U.S. military DOES, in fact, supply its soldiers with hunting rifles. For example, the Remington 700 bolt-action rifle, one of the most popular hunting rifles in existence, is also used by the Army and the Marine Corps (and law enforcement) as a sniper rifle. By default, if you have any kind of big-game hunting rifle, you have what is a high-powered sniper rifle. In addition, the AR-15, of which the military uses the assault-rifle version, the M16, is a fine small-game hunting rifle.Wow, again your showing that the Army sometimes uses civilian based hunting type weapons to kill people. I already knew this. I don't care about what the Army does. They are supposed to be in the business of killing people. The M-16 is not a fine small game hunting rifle. It can be used to hunt certain animals like varmints or small deer. But there are plenty of bolt-action guns that do it better. And they don't have 20-30+ round magazines. These should be banned! Semi-automatic weapons that have magazine counts over 10 rounds should be banned! They have the most potential for mass casualties. They are not needed for hunting or target shooting. There are plenty of single shot, or low cap magazine guns of various calibers that are perfect for target shooting and hunting.
No it isn't. Semiautomatic guns, and guns functionally identical to semiautomatic, have been around a long time before "assault rifles" were ever invented. They were in use by civilians long before they came into widespread use by the military.Great, I knew this too. Who cares? I'm not against semi-automatic weapons. Unless they can be fitted with high-cap magazines over 10 rounds. Although slightly unnecessary, if some hunters want to use semi-autos, that's fine. Semi-automatic Rifles and shotguns with 5-7 round magazines(internal, non-detachable) are acceptable for hunting. The time to reload these weapons makes them less suitable for psychos who want to kill lots of people fast.
The Defense Intelligence Agency via its Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." Semiautomatic rifles do not fit this definition as they lack the automatic fire capability. In addition, it also shows the untruth in the term "high-powered assault rifle" as there really is no such thing.Nice try again. What does this have to do with anything? I am not getting caught up in the definition game. I see you still want to throw big words and definitions around. Civilians have no use for semi-automatic weapons that have a magazine capacity of 10 rounds or more. Period! I don't care what you call them!
And if a military issues its soldiers semiautomatic rifles, they are not assault rifles.Do they have magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds? Are they used for killing people? But again who cares? That's the military. They can use any weapons they want to. I don't have a problem with that. They are in the killing business.
Yes, plenty of armies like them for this reason. So do law enforcement, and so do civilians. Again, it is your right to keep and bear ARMS, i.e. the basic tools of warfare. Militaries also like 9mm handguns, .45 caliber handguns, 12-gauge pump-action shotguns, and bolt-action hunting rifles for sniper use. Again, war is not just something that individual countries get into with one another, it is something that individuals can make on one another as well. It is also something that oppressive governments can make on individuals as well. And most gun violence occurs with handguns.Again I don't care about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment or what the military uses for it's weapons. I like the whole "oppressive government" thing too. It shows how delusional you are. I'm ok with people having guns as long as they are not semi-automatic(or fully automatic-obviously)and have a magazine capacity of 10 or more rounds
Who defines what constitutes a "high-capacity magazine?" According to gun control proponents, it's any magazine of over ten-round capacity. Why? Because they arbitrarily decided to make it that. They can define it however they want to, as the New York State government just did.And I am glad for NY State! It is an arbitrary number and it is a good starting point. People don't need magazines(integral/internal or detachable) that have a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Even if there are plenty of whack-jobs that think they do because of some bogey-man government threat.
And once again, the right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting or target shooting. No more than the First Amendment is only to protect your right to write romance novels or comedies.And once again I don't care about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Laws are written to be changed or amended. That's why they are called amendments. Pistols, rifles, or shotguns that are semi-automatic and have magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds should be banned. Civilians have no use for them. They are only designed for killing people. They are very well suited for killing lots of people very fast. They reduce the amount of time to reload and reduce the frequency of having to reload. Thus enabling the shooter to possibly keep off people who could otherwise subdue the shooter while he or she was reloading.
I want all semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols of any caliber that have an integral or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds banned. It's that simple.Seeing as how they are not yet banned, gun control advocates are losing the argument due to misinformation.IMO, you have no right to dictate to a person what guns they can have just because you arbitrarily decide that they shouldn't be allowed to possess such guns (which have been available for over 100 years now, and were around long before mass shootings were ever any issue).
I don't care what you think in this regard. I am familiar with your tired argument. I don't care about your interpretation of our right to bear arms.It's not "my" interpretation. Nor is my argument any tired argument.
The following is a very, very short list of guns that were designed to kill people: Thompson Submachinegun, Colt 1911 .45 auto, AR-15/M16, AK-47, Browning BAR, Practically all pistols and revolvers. None of these guns were designed to kill apes or animals. They were designed and manufactured to supply armies and police with weapons to shoot people with. PERIOD! The list of examples I provided is very short.And every single one of them could be used to shoot an animal if you had to. There is nothing special about an "animal" versus a human considering a human is an animal. AR-15, Kalashnikovs, and Browning BAR all make fine hunting rifles.
Yes I am. What's your point? I want guns that shoot that ammo(and many many more calibers) and have a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds, and are semi-automatic-banned! By pointing out your little ammo story here, you reveal your deception. This shows how military type weaponry has slowly seeped into the civilians hands. After-all we don't see the Military using common hunting rounds such as .20 gauge, .22-250, .22 LR, .243 etc etc.As I've pointed out before, "military" guns versus "civilian" guns are pretty much one and the same. Guns are arms, basic tools of war. Militaries use them, law enforcement (who are not military and trained to fight defensively) use them, and civilians use them. As for what the military uses, it uses what it deems best to use. If a hunting round makes an ideal round for military use, they'll use it, just as they use a hunting rifle for a sniper rifle and have adopted hunting uppers for the AR-15 for building AR-15 sniper rifles.
.223, 30-'06, and .308 are some of the most popular calibers(or their metric equivalent) in the World for infantry weapons. They also sell very well in the US civilian market where people use them in their privately owned military or military type weapons. These weapons at a minimum are semi-automatic, and have a magazine capacity of 10 rounds or more. These weapons need to be banned! They are sometimes the type weapons that are used in psychotic killing sprees. They make or can make the killing spree death count go much higher.Killing sprees are rare. There are other things people don't need that get people killed each year as well.
I don't care what your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is.So what's your interpretation? That it was about hunting or sporting?
Wow, again your showing that the Army sometimes uses civilian based hunting type weapons to kill people. I already knew this. I don't care about what the Army does. They are supposed to be in the business of killing people. The M-16 is not a fine small game hunting rifle. It can be used to hunt certain animals like varmints or small deer. But there are plenty of bolt-action guns that do it better. And they don't have 20-30+ round magazines. These should be banned!Why? And what gun does something best is up to the person using it.
Semi-automatic weapons that have magazine counts over 10 rounds should be banned! They have the most potential for mass casualties. They are not needed for hunting or target shooting. There are plenty of single shot, or low cap magazine guns of various calibers that are perfect for target shooting and hunting.The right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting or target shooting, so that is irrelevant.
Great, I knew this too. Who cares? I'm not against semi-automatic weapons. Unless they can be fitted with high-cap magazines over 10 rounds.That's your definition of "high-cap." What you are really talking about are what are standard-capacity magazines. Ten round magazines are reduced capacity magazines.
Although slightly unnecessary, if some hunters want to use semi-autos, that's fine. Semi-automatic Rifles and shotguns with 5-7 round magazines(internal, non-detachable) are acceptable for hunting. The time to reload these weapons makes them less suitable for psychos who want to kill lots of people fast.And also less suitable for self-defense use.
Nice try again. What does this have to do with anything? I am not getting caught up in the definition game. I see you still want to throw big words and definitions around. Civilians have no use for semi-automatic weapons that have a magazine capacity of 10 rounds or more. Period! I don't care what you call them!Then say that. I don't care if someone says they want semiautomatic weapons banned. I will argue against it, but saying one wants semiautomatic weapons banned is different then claiming they want "assault weapons" banned, which can be anything. Semiautomatic refers to a specific function. And it isn't throwing big words around, it's explaining just what certain phrases and terms mean, which is important.
Do they have magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds? Are they used for killing people? But again who cares? That's the military. They can use any weapons they want to. I don't have a problem with that. They are in the killing business.And that's the reason a lot of people own guns too. To be able to kill someone if they need to.
Again I don't care about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment or what the military uses for it's weapons. I like the whole "oppressive government" thing too. It shows how delusional you are.You have no way of predicting the future regarding whether or not the government could ever become oppressive. Part of what keeps the government from becoming tyrannical is the constant efforts on the part of both political parties to keep tyranny at bay, the Left who don't trust the police state (hence the uproar over the Bush administration's policies) and the Right who don't trust the government in the economy or regarding gun rights. Organizations like the ACLU that are uncompromising. If the government ever did become tyrannical, peaceful civil resistance is what you try first. Armed resistance is always a last ditch option. But the people possessing arms serves as the ultimate check on a tyrannical government. It is far more difficult to control a country if everyone is armed versus if the people are not armed. Why do you think they say it would nuts for the United States to try invading Iran? It's not so much the Iranian military as it is the 80 million Iranians that wouldn't want the U.S. in there. A military, even a modern one, can only be so capable.
I'm ok with people having guns as long as they are not semi-automatic(or fully automatic-obviously)and have a magazine capacity of 10 or more roundsYou reduce it to that and then you get someone who says that pump-actions and lever-actions need to be banned.
And I am glad for NY State! It is an arbitrary number and it is a good starting point. People don't need magazines(integral/internal or detachable) that have a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Even if there are plenty of whack-jobs that think they do because of some bogey-man government threat.1) The right to keep and bear arms isn't predicated on "need." 2) It's not just about some governmental threat, it's also for personal self-defense. Why do you think the police use standard-capacity magazines? You might be dealing with multiple attackers, you could miss while shooting, and also it can take multiple shots to stop a person, especially if they are high on some drug. In such a situation, ten rounds could be very inadequate. And especially if you are in a rural area where the police could be a half hour to forty-five minutes away.
And once again I don't care about your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Laws are written to be changed or amended. That's why they are called amendments.Then call for a Constitutional amendment. Until then, the government is supposed to abide by the Constitution.
Pistols, rifles, or shotguns that are semi-automatic and have magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds should be banned. Civilians have no use for them. They are only designed for killing people. They are very well suited for killing lots of people very fast. They reduce the amount of time to reload and reduce the frequency of having to reload. Thus enabling the shooter to possibly keep off people who could otherwise subdue the shooter while he or she was reloading.Thus making them also very ideal for self-defense.
... to a good degree, the NRA is America. It isn't just it's membership, it is a sizeable number of non-members who also support its basic mission.The NRA mission appears to include insuring that crazies and criminals are not restricted from acquiring guns by a mandatory waiting period.
LogicMan, I give you credit for standing up to your beliefs. Thank you for not further retorting with more rhetoric and obfuscation.(for the most part)
Although I vehemently disagree with you, you have maintained a coolness and directness in responding to my provocative response.
You do however maintain some rather shaky justifications and taxonomies regarding weapon types.
I find your comparison with animals and humans being the same with regards to firearms kind of tacky.
You also didn’t give a good enough rebuttal to my contention that military weapons are not best for hunting. They aren’t! If you don’t know that, you don’t know guns. The counter about what’s ideal for who, being an arbitrary thing is irrelevant and distraction.
There are plenty of hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols which are ideal for hunting and target shooting. They are easily accessible, economic, and made specifically for hunting/target. Don’t bother disputing this with me.
Obviously I don’t subscribe to the beleaguered citizen in distress scenario where thousands of good gun owners will defend themselves against a tyrannical govt.
In fact, that crap is real shallow and Hollywood. Years of Hollywood conditioning.
But enough. I don’t want to debate these with you. I feel certain you understand why I want semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds banned. Even if you don’t want them banned.
But what gives the NRA its influence? It's influence is not solely through money as folks such as Bloomberg can match it. And I do not think it is through the gun manufacturing industry because of how small it is. What gives the NRA the influence it has in America is that, to a good degree, the NRA is America. It isn't just it's membership, it is a sizeable number of non-members who also support its basic mission.In middle America that may be true to a degree but the basic argument is false. A recent poll showed that something like 90% of Americans were in favor of requiring background checks before an individual could purchase a gun and yet the measure was defeated. It clearly demonstrates that the NRA had the power to influence a law and defeat the will of the majority.
LogicMan-That's your definition of "high-cap." What you are really talking about are what are standard-capacity magazines. Ten round magazines are reduced capacity magazines.I'm not making definitions. You are. It doesn't matter what you call them. Just as long as magazines with capacities over 10 rounds are banned. That means no importation of magazines with capacities over 10 rounds, no domestic sales of said magazines(except for law enforcement or military), no trading, no Grandfather Clause, no exhibition of said magazines, no use of said magazines, no parts sales for said magazines, no modification kits for magazines to increase capacity. The law should confiscate all magazines on site and impose a fine for usage. An amnesty program should be set-up and said magazines should be turned in for monetary compensation. The remainder of said magazines can be quietly hoarded by wing-nuts while they await the Second Coming. After 100 or so years, these magazines will have vanished. The remainder will be mostly obsolete or worn out. Problem solved!
Then say that. I don't care if someone says they want semiautomatic weapons banned. I will argue against it, but saying one wants semiautomatic weapons banned is different then claiming they want "assault weapons" banned, which can be anything. Semiautomatic refers to a specific function. And it isn't throwing big words around, it's explaining just what certain phrases and terms mean, which is important.I did say that from the get-go. You're trying to confuse people with comparisons of assault rifles and weapons and full-automatic fire etc. I'm trying to clarify to my fellow gun control advocates that it is simple: Outlaw all guns that are semi-automatic and have a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. It's that simple. My fellow Gun control advocates don't need to be confused with all these tongue in cheek rednecks and gun-nut whackjobs and NRA sycophants confusing them with meandering discussions about pistol grip fore-ends, or flash hiders, or collapsible stocks etc. That's all tertiary at best! The NRA sycophants know it too. You would love nothing more than to go round and round explaining to all of these good people on here what the definition of an assault rifle is. Because for alot of them it is out of their knowledge scope. So you can confuse them and turn the tables on focal points! No No No....just ban all guns that are semi-automatic and have magazine capacities of over 10 rounds. That covers everything! Pistols, shotguns and rifles all in one swoop. And it leaves untouched every conceivable gun one might need to hunt, target shoot or even defend their home with. (I hate to quibble about this here, I should have mentioned this aways back, shotgun magazines should be limited to 5 rounds. You know, like a regular Model 37 or an 1100...nobody needs more capacity than that to hunt with.)
And that's the reason a lot of people own guns too. To be able to kill someone if they need to.This is rich. Too much Hollywood again!
You reduce it to that and then you get someone who says that pump-actions and lever-actions need to be banned.I would hope not. I wouldn't go for pumps or levers being banned. Or 5 round semi-automatic shotguns or revolvers or semi-automatic pistols with magazines that hold 10 rounds or less. In fact, the 10 round rotary mag in a Ruger 10/22 .22 LR or even the 15 or 18 round tube magazine Marlin .22 LRs could be allowed to stay. But no 50 round drums or extensions or any of that other happy horse crap...even for .22LR!
1) The right to keep and bear arms isn't predicated on "need."You just said the reason alot of people own guns is because they may NEED to kill someone. Sounds like a need to me. If the right to bear arms isn't predicated on a need, then what is it predicated on?
2) It's not just about some governmental threat, it's also for personal self-defense. Why do you think the police use standard-capacity magazines? You might be dealing with multiple attackers, you could miss while shooting, and also it can take multiple shots to stop a person, especially if they are high on some drug. In such a situation, ten rounds could be very inadequate. And especially if you are in a rural area where the police could be a half hour to forty-five minutes away.Do you mean: "why do I think the police use magazines with capacities over 10 rounds?" Those magazines may be standard for police, but they should not be standard for civilians. I already said civilians don't need magazines that hold over 10 rounds. None of those magazines will be standard for civilians or civilian purchased guns when they are outlawed.
Then call for a Constitutional amendment. Until then, the government is supposed to abide by the Constitution.Don't need a Constitutional convention. New York didn't need one. Just have to place limits and more restrictions on existing rights and privileges. Make Semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds accessible only to De-Luxe Permit holders. Yessir! 1 year waiting period per gun. Extensive background checks, huge permit fees..2 to 3 thousand dollars per gun say...oh yeah. That will reduce the amount of slack-jawed gun-toting morons out there.
In middle America that may be true to a degree but the basic argument is false. A recent poll showed that something like 90% of Americans were in favor of requiring background checks before an individual could purchase a gun and yet the measure was defeated. It clearly demonstrates that the NRA had the power to influence a law and defeat the will of the majority.But as said, that's like saying a majority support balancing the budget. When it comes to specifics, each political party presents their plan and then they each say the other one is nuts and gridlock occurs. The measure was defeated because a majority did not support this particular plan.
In middle America that may be true to a degree but the basic argument is false. A recent poll showed that something like 90% of Americans were in favor of requiring background checks before an individual could purchase a gun and yet the measure was defeated. It clearly demonstrates that the NRA had the power to influence a law and defeat the will of the majority.But as said, that's like saying a majority support balancing the budget. When it comes to specifics, each political party presents their plan and then they each say the other one is nuts and gridlock occurs. The measure was defeated because a majority did not support this particular plan. A majority of who? When you ask the public they want background checks. It was a majority of politicians who voted it down and they don't necessarily ( and in this case not at all) represent the will of the majority. They represent the people who will get them elected and if they believe the NRA can get them booted out they will vote with the NRA even if its not what their constituents want because the NRA will use their money to spin things against their enemies come election time.
LogicMan, I give you credit for standing up to your beliefs. Thank you for not further retorting with more rhetoric and obfuscation.(for the most part) Although I vehemently disagree with you, you have maintained a coolness and directness in responding to my provocative response.Thanks!
You do however maintain some rather shaky justifications and taxonomies regarding weapon types. I find your comparison with animals and humans being the same with regards to firearms kind of tacky. You also didn't give a good enough rebuttal to my contention that military weapons are not best for hunting. They aren't! If you don't know that, you don't know guns. The counter about what's ideal for who, being an arbitrary thing is irrelevant and distraction.How is it tacky? Humans are animals. We're a very brainy upright walking ape. If a gun can be used to kill a variety of non-human animals, it can most definitely be used to kill a human and vice-versa. Military guns make fine hunting weapons, which is why historically, most purpose-built hunting and sporting rifles have been derived from military designs, and the practice of adopting military guns for civilian purposes such as self-defense and hunting goes back to the days of the Revolution.
There are plenty of hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols which are ideal for hunting and target shooting. They are easily accessible, economic, and made specifically for hunting/target. Don't bother disputing this with me.Sure there are. And every one of them could be modified to be more robust to make for a fine military gun too. Also remember that the right to keep arms isn't about those things though.
Obviously I don't subscribe to the beleaguered citizen in distress scenario where thousands of good gun owners will defend themselves against a tyrannical govt. In fact, that crap is real shallow and Hollywood. Years of Hollywood conditioning.As said, no one can predict the future. Peaceful civil resistance would always be the first thing to do. Violent resistance is only a last-ditch option. The people having arms serves as the ultimate deterrent to such a government. It's kind of like nations having nuclear bombs, it serves as an ultimate deterrent.
I'm not making definitions. You are. It doesn't matter what you call them. Just as long as magazines with capacities over 10 rounds are banned. That means no importation of magazines with capacities over 10 rounds, no domestic sales of said magazines(except for law enforcement or military), no trading, no Grandfather Clause, no exhibition of said magazines, no use of said magazines, no parts sales for said magazines, no modification kits for magazines to increase capacity.Nope, calling anything over ten rounds "high-capacity" is something made-up. However, if you want to argue the number of rounds itself, fine, but I argue against it, for the reasons I have stated above.
The law should confiscate all magazines on site and impose a fine for usage. An amnesty program should be set-up and said magazines should be turned in for monetary compensation. The remainder of said magazines can be quietly hoarded by wing-nuts while they await the Second Coming. After 100 or so years, these magazines will have vanished. The remainder will be mostly obsolete or worn out. Problem solved!And also people's rights infringed upon. People like magazines of over ten rounds for the same reasons police and military do, as they face the criminals police do.
I did say that from the get-go. You're trying to confuse people with comparisons of assault rifles and weapons and full-automatic fire etc. I'm trying to clarify to my fellow gun control advocates that it is simple: Outlaw all guns that are semi-automatic and have a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. It's that simpleOkay fine, if that is your argument, then I disagree with it via my arguments made in prior posts. However I am not trying to confuse people at all. It is important people know what the terminology means on this issue.
My fellow Gun control advocates don't need to be confused with all these tongue in cheek rednecks and gun-nut whackjobs and NRA sycophants confusing them with meandering discussions about pistol grip fore-ends, or flash hiders, or collapsible stocks etc. That's all tertiary at best! The NRA sycophants know it too.It isn't rednecks or gun nuts (BTW, why are people who defend one part of the Constitution considered nuts but people who uncompromisingly defend other parts of the Constitution, for example the ACLU, respected?) who seek to confuse with this issue, it is gun control who often mislead otherwise well-meaning people with such terminology. You are right, pistol grips, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc...are tertiary, so why make laws labeling guns with such features as "assault weapons" and then demonize those who are against such laws?
You would love nothing more than to go round and round explaining to all of these good people on here what the definition of an assault rifle is. Because for alot of them it is out of their knowledge scope. So you can confuse them and turn the tables on focal points! No No No....just ban all guns that are semi-automatic and have magazine capacities of over 10 rounds. That covers everything! Pistols, shotguns and rifles all in one swoop. And it leaves untouched every conceivable gun one might need to hunt, target shoot or even defend their home with.Explaining things to people is about clearing up misconceptions, not confusing people. And you ban semiautomatics and limit it to ten round magazines, then you end up with lever-actions and pump-actions getting banned as well at some point. Gun control proponents will always find ways to build on prior gun control legislation.
(I hate to quibble about this here, I should have mentioned this aways back, shotgun magazines should be limited to 5 rounds. You know, like a regular Model 37 or an 1100...nobody needs more capacity than that to hunt with.)Textbook example here! You say limit guns to ten round fixed magazines and then say shotguns should be limited to five rounds, because that's all one "needs" for "hunting" (which again is not what the right to keep and bear arms is about).
This is rich. Too much Hollywood again!Really? so why do police officers carry guns? What about all of the incidences each year involving home break-ins and crimes. There is nothing "Hollywood" about it.
I would hope not. I wouldn't go for pumps or levers being banned. Or 5 round semi-automatic shotguns or revolvers or semi-automatic pistols with magazines that hold 10 rounds or less. In fact, the 10 round rotary mag in a Ruger 10/22 .22 LR or even the 15 or 18 round tube magazine Marlin .22 LRs could be allowed to stay. But no 50 round drums or extensions or any of that other happy horse crap....even for .22LR!.22s are more plinking guns, good for target practice, not hunting or self-defense. Also, you need to be more clear, as you've said you want all semiautomatics banned, now you say you are okay with some semiautomatics. But there are plenty of people who would say the pump and lever actions should be banned also. And then that the bolt-actions should be strictly regulated as they also serve as sniper rifles.
You just said the reason alot of people own guns is because they may NEED to kill someone. Sounds like a need to me. If the right to bear arms isn't predicated on a need, then what is it predicated on?What is meant is that one doesn't have to demonstrate a specific need to own a gun, no more than one needs to demonstrate a need to own a textbook on say chemistry. However, one of the reasons people will own guns is for self-defense.
Do you mean: "why do I think the police use magazines with capacities over 10 rounds?" Those magazines may be standard for police, but they should not be standard for civilians. I already said civilians don't need magazines that hold over 10 rounds. None of those magazines will be standard for civilians or civilian purchased guns when they are outlawed.In addition to the right not predicated on need, but why wouldn't civilians need such magazines? Police need them, so why wouldn't civilians? Who are you to decide this?
Don't need a Constitutional convention. New York didn't need one. Just have to place limits and more restrictions on existing rights and privileges. Make Semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds accessible only to De-Luxe Permit holders. Yessir! 1 year waiting period per gun. Extensive background checks, huge permit fees..2 to 3 thousand dollars per gun say...oh yeah. That will reduce the amount of slack-jawed gun-toting morons out there.Thus far, none of those "slack-jawed gun-toting morons" (BTW you may not realize it, but there is an element of bigotry in your views on gun owners it seems---you should stop being so judgemental) have been involved in mass shootings. All of the mass shootings have involved people who were clearly mentally ill, with the exception for Nidal Hasan, for whom it was religious, and then that cop in California who was full of praise for President Obama.
A majority of who?The American people.
When you ask the public they want background checks. It was a majority of politicians who voted it down and they don't necessarily ( and in this case not at all) represent the will of the majority. They represent the people who will get them elected and if they believe the NRA can get them booted out they will vote with the NRA even if its not what their constituents want because the NRA will use their money to spin things against their enemies come election time.The problem I'd say for such legislation is actually the opposite: rather than politicians voting against their constituents, they voted with their constituents. National polls can be irrelevant on issues like this when it comes to how individual Congresspeople will vote. Also keep in mind as well that we are a republic, not a democracy.
.22s are more plinking guns, good for target practice, not hunting or self-defense. Also, you need to be more clear, as you’ve said you want all semiautomatics banned, now you say you are okay with some semiautomatics. But there are plenty of people who would say the pump and lever actions should be banned also. And then that the bolt-actions should be strictly regulated as they also serve as sniper rifles.I thought this was going to crop up. What have I been saying? Ban all weapons that are semi-automatic AND have a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. I never said I wanted to ban semi-autos by themselves. And yes, all weapons that can take magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would be outlawed even if their magazines are banned too. So ARs and AKs and Mini-14s for examples should be outlawed. 4 shot Remington semi-automatic hunting rifles or shotguns that hold 5 or less rounds are ok by me. Same with the Colt 1911. It's semi-automatic but it only holds 8 rounds. That's fine by me. These type weapons don't need to banned. I stated that in so many words already above. And yes, I conceded a discussion point about the capacity of factory standard .22s such as the Marlins. But only in .22 LR and only factory standard specs. This is called a little wiggle room...in the debate. A little.
You do however maintain some rather shaky justifications and taxonomies regarding weapon types.
I find your comparison with animals and humans being the same with regards to firearms kind of tacky.
You also didn’t give a good enough rebuttal to my contention that military weapons are not best for hunting. They aren’t! If you don’t know that, you don’t know guns. The counter about what’s ideal for who, being an arbitrary thing is irrelevant and distraction.
LogicMan-How is it tacky? Humans are animals. We’re a very brainy upright walking ape. If a gun can be used to kill a variety of non-human animals, it can most definitely be used to kill a human and vice-versa. Military guns make fine hunting weapons, which is why historically, most purpose-built hunting and sporting rifles have been derived from military designs, and the practice of adopting military guns for civilian purposes such as self-defense and hunting goes back to the days of the Revolution.There are plenty of hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols which are ideal for hunting and target shooting. They are easily accessible, economic, and made specifically for hunting/target. Don’t bother disputing this with me.
LogicMan-Sure there are. And every one of them could be modified to be more robust to make for a fine military gun too. Also remember that the right to keep arms isn't about those things though.You know I get the feeling that here in these quotes and in others, you're attempting to muddy the waters between military weapons and civilian guns. You wouldn't be doing that would you? Because trying to blur the line between what's acceptable for civilians to have and what is acceptable for the police and the military to have would be a method of deception on your part. "Let's try to blur the line between civilian sporting arms and military/military style arms." Right? That's your strategy! I see right through your strategy and talking points...I hope others do too. Let me guess, you're going to say: "No that isn't my strategy, I just want people to have the right information." You are feeding those who will listen misinformation!
In case folks have forgotten, the recent failed bill to require background checks, failed despite overwhelming public support, BUT ALSO FAILED IN THE SENATE WITH A MAJORITY OF SENATORS VOTING FOR IT. 56 YEA - 46 NAY
With the constant use of the bastardized filibuster rules, the Republicans can and have been very consistently preventing any potentially productive legislation from being passed.
Our legislative system is being controlled by an extremist minority, and it will apparently continue to be thus, until a supermajority of Democrats are voted in. If Independent voters come to recognize this, the dysfunctional Republican strategy may backfire. So, go for it, all you extreme gun advocates and your once relatively honored American Institution, the NRA. Keep trampling on the will of the majority. Eventually you will jump the shark.
You know I get the feeling that here in these quotes and in others, you’re attempting to muddy the waters between military weapons and civilian guns. You wouldn’t be doing that would you? Because trying to blur the line between what’s acceptable for civilians to have and what is acceptable for the police and the military to have would be a method of deception on your part. “Let’s try to blur the line between civilian sporting arms and military/military style arms." Right? That’s your strategy!I did as well Vy and I had a detailed line by line refutation of his reply to me when something happened on my end or the forum site robbed me of my postings. Meantime I'm switching to my laptop. The whole concept that civilian weapons are military weapons is ludicrous, for instance no trained combat soldier would ever arm himself with my bolt action H&R 410 shotgun or my dueling pistol for that matter. Conversely, no one would go hunting with a BAR. My father carried one in World War II. They weigh twenty pounds and have to be carried on a sling. I know, I've held and shot one. There's absolutely no way I'd ever hunt with one. He's reaching here. More when I can figure out my problem with multiple posts. Cap't Jack
.....or my dueling pistol for that matter. Conversely, no one would go hunting with a BAR. My father carried one in World War II. They weigh twenty pounds and have to be carried on a sling. I know, I've held and shot one. There's absolutely no way I'd ever hunt with one. He's reaching here. More when I can figure out my problem with multiple posts. Cap't JackYes I'm glad you mention it too. Of course if reasonable people are able to make the distinction between sporting arms and military arms(or arms that are semi-automatic and have a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds) then a more clear picture can be presented to the public on which arms are reasonable for civilians to have and which arms are unreasonable for civilians to have.
I thought this was going to crop up. What have I been saying? Ban all weapons that are semi-automatic AND have a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. I never said I wanted to ban semi-autos by themselves. And yes, all weapons that can take magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would be outlawed even if their magazines are banned too. So ARs and AKs and Mini-14s for examples should be outlawed. 4 shot Remington semi-automatic hunting rifles or shotguns that hold 5 or less rounds are ok by me. Same with the Colt 1911. It's semi-automatic but it only holds 8 rounds. That's fine by me. These type weapons don't need to banned. I stated that in so many words already above. And yes, I conceded a discussion point about the capacity of factory standard .22s such as the Marlins. But only in .22 LR and only factory standard specs. This is called a little wiggle room...in the debate. A little.The problem with your arguments on this is that it is all very arbitrary. It's like saying that anyone who makes over $300K a year should be taxed at 90%. Who decides that number? How is it arrived at? Similarly, the ten round limitation for magazines and the four round limitation for semiautomatic hunting rifles (which are no different than semiautomatic military rifles BTW) and the five round limitation for shotguns. How are these numbers arrived at? It is all just arbitrarily chosen by yourself.
There are plenty of hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols which are ideal for hunting and target shooting. They are easily accessible, economic, and made specifically for hunting/target. Don’t bother disputing this with me.I can very much dispute it. Ultimately, a gun is a gun. You use a shotgun to shoot at an enemy soldier, you can use it for hunting, and vice-versa. A semiautomatic .223 hunting rifle is no different in its ability to kill than a semiautomatic rifle like the AR-15 (BTW AR-15s and Kalashnikovs are among the most economical of all guns, in particular AR-15s, which is why they make up 50% of all gun sales).
You know I get the feeling that here in these quotes and in others, you're attempting to muddy the waters between military weapons and civilian guns. You wouldn't be doing that would you? Because trying to blur the line between what's acceptable for civilians to have and what is acceptable for the police and the military to have would be a method of deception on your part. "Let's try to blur the line between civilian sporting arms and military/military style arms." Right? That's your strategy! I see right through your strategy and talking points...I hope others do too. Let me guess, you're going to say: "No that isn't my strategy, I just want people to have the right information." You are feeding those who will listen misinformation!Refute my points then. Because what you're engaging in here is to just essentially call me a liar without actually explaining how. 1) How exactly are "military" guns and "police" guns different from "civilian" guns? If there is a difference, then why is it that all of the most common firearms that have been used by civilians for decades, over one hundred years even in some cases, are identical to the ones the military and law enforcement uses? 2) What exactly makes "civilian" use of a firearm any different from "military" and "police" use of a firearm? In both cases, the primary usage would be for war. A civilian engaging in self-defense with a firearm will do so in the event that another individual is making war on them. Tell me, why do you think a police officer is trained to shoot a person until they drop if said person pulls a knife on the police officer? It's because if you pull a knife on a cop, it's not to "fight" or "resist," it is essentially a declaration of war. It means you're going to try to kill the police officer. And that is why the police carry the basic tools of war, firearms. Civilian use is no different. 3) "Law enforcement" use of a firearm, in particular, is identical to a civilian, because law enforcement are trained to fight defensively, not offensively. One could thus even raise the question of why do the police need these "military" types of guns when police are not supposed to be a militarized force. The reason is because guns are guns. They are basic tools of war. 4) SWAT teams make use of AR-15s because they are safer weapons with regards to the safety of the general public with regards to wall penetration issues.
In case folks have forgotten, the recent failed bill to require background checks, failed despite overwhelming public support, BUT ALSO FAILED IN THE SENATE WITH A MAJORITY OF SENATORS VOTING FOR IT. 56 YEA - 46 NAYAgain, there is no proof that that particular bill had "overwhelming" public support.
With the constant use of the bastardized filibuster rules, the Republicans can and have been very consistently preventing any potentially productive legislation from being passed.Just because one side says the legislation is good doesn't make it so. And Democrats like the filibuster when its the Republicans with control and trying to push through legislation that the Democrats do not approve of. BTW, Democrats are not above partisan tricks either, look at how they passed the Affordable Care Act.
Our legislative system is being controlled by an extremist minority, and it will apparently continue to be thus, until a supermajority of Democrats are voted in. If Independent voters come to recognize this, the dysfunctional Republican strategy may backfire. So, go for it, all you extreme gun advocates and your once relatively honored American Institution, the NRA. Keep trampling on the will of the majority. Eventually you will jump the shark.It is still never explained how exactly the gun rights people are an "extremist minority" or how if such a minority, they are able to control the legislative process so much. And people approve of the NRA more today than in the past.