Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Eric the Green]

(03-03-2018, 11:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-03-2018, 09:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-02-2018, 10:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-02-2018, 08:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... It's not a "basic right" to buy a weapon of war. Exactly which models constitute one, is the argument the gun advocates still use to try to confuse the issue.

Hint. The weapons of war are more deadly. We aren't talking about weapons of war. We are talking about weapons that shoot a tinch faster but are less powerful than a semi automatic deer rifle. What's the difference between bang bang bang bang and bang bang bang. Well, that's the difference between an AR-15 and a standard Remington semi automatic rifle. If someone contests the stores right to change the legal age, they'll win because Walmart has no legal leg to stand on. It's a ploy.

No, you are wrong on this.  What makes an AR-15 a military arm is exactly what makes an AK-47 one.  Both have detachable magazines that can hold as many as 30 rounds (perhaps more in some cases).  Both use high velocity, minimally stable rounds, though the AR-15 is both faster and less stable.  Those two criteria alone are enough for me.  High capacity is the root of all the problems we've seen with mass shootings.  The speed and stability of the rounds make them more deadly and able to penetrate body armor ... unless it's the armor we supply our troops.  In short, they have no civilian application outside a SWAT team.

FWIW, I wouldn't stop there.  Armor piercing rounds should NEVER be sold to anyone, but they are for sale in stores and on the Internet.  Another item on the 'never should be available' list are 50 caliber sniper rifles like these:

That is the blue wet dream.  The law of the land is different.  With regard to sawed off shot guns and the Tommy gun - the 1930s equivalent of the assault rifle - the US Supreme Court interpreted the Second as having a litmus test.  If the US military uses an arm, it is an arm.  Both weapons were regulated because they were not used by the military.

Of course, the ban by that litmus test was temporary.  Tommy guns were commonly carried by the US military in World War II.  Sawed off shotguns were convenient for clearing out tunnels in Vietnam.  It is a changing legal litmus test.

But that was when the Second was interpreted as only protecting the militia.  It was a case where the Supremes wanted to justify more authority to the government.  Still, it has not been overturned.  Some think the People can only carry military arms.

Still, there are multiple versions of the law.  The Standard Model suggests the right to keep and bear arms.  Some blues think the Constitution can be changed on whim.  The one thing certain is uncertainty, that whatever you believe, some out there will disagree firmly at a values and legal level.

I don't think one part of the country can change another part's values.  Some people want to be able to protect themselves, and the Constitution is clear that they can by law.  I also don't believe prohibition works.  I'm a bit dubious that armed rebellion against the sort of people we have been electing can work.

But folks disagree.

Thanks David for your input on the debate, and the need to go past the attempt by the right-wing to obfuscate what constitutes a weapon of war. I'm sure the legislatures, once more free from the NRA and their GOP synchophants, will need to work frequently to update the ability of greedy gun makers to get around bans on weapons of war for civilian use.

Folks disagree. But usually one side wins the debate eventually. Folks disagreed on slavery, and went to war over it. Slavery was abolished, eventually. Folks may rebel or go to war over guns. The progressive side will win eventually, and eventually we'll get rid of guns. It is not really a values issue, except that we're talking the value of life. The question is how to protect it. So at bottom, although it concerns a primary value, the debate is only about the best way to fulfill it. It is a question of strategy and safety. And the Constitution is by no means clear on it. It only depends on which faction has chosen a majority of Court members.

Armed rebellion against the sort of people we have been electing will not work, I don't think, whether the rebellion is against the right-wing people or the left-wing people, so-called, that we have been electing. I don't think stockpiling and arming the citizenry will facilitate such a rebellion. It would need to be well organized, essentially by a state-in-exile or a seceding group of states. Then, the question for the rebels would be whether the new boss turned out to be essentially the same as the old boss.