• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The Great AWs Firearm Regulation Food Fight

Pags

Well-Known Member
pilot
Why is that type of weapon (AR pattern) so important? How has that weapon come to define what should and shouldn’t be constitute gun legislation? Is is really that awesome of a gun?
 

nittany03

FUBIJAR
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Why is that type of weapon (AR pattern) so important? How has that weapon come to define what should and shouldn’t be constitute gun legislation? Is is really that awesome of a gun?
OK, fine, “semiautomatic rifles with allegedly military features.” ARs, AKs, FN FALs, G3s, and so on. The AR has come to define the debate because it’s popular. Feinstein was actually saying she’d have all so-called “assault weapons” banned, but that’s a bullshit term designed to mislead average people into conflating them with machine guns, so I didn’t feel like resorting to it.
 

Pags

Well-Known Member
pilot
OK, fine, “semiautomatic rifles with allegedly military features.” ARs, AKs, FN FALs, G3s, and so on. The AR has come to define the debate because it’s popular. Feinstein was actually saying she’d have all so-called “assault weapons” banned, but that’s a bullshit term designed to mislead average people into conflating them with machine guns, so I didn’t feel like resorting to it.
You didn't answer my question though, you just re-defined the subject. Let's try again...

Why is that type of weapon (semiautomatic rifles with allegedly military features) so important? How has that weapon come to define what should and shouldn’t be constitute gun legislation? Is it really that awesome of a gun?
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
You didn't answer my question though, you just re-defined the subject. Let's try again...

Why is that type of weapon (semiautomatic rifles with allegedly military features) so important? How has that weapon come to define what should and shouldn’t be constitute gun legislation? Is it really that awesome of a gun?
Because an AR functions like a traditional semi auto rifle. Function is the key. Get AR type weapons banned and a judge, within two years, will ban semi auto "hunting " rifles because he will find their function makes them substantially the same. It is completely logical.
 

nittany03

FUBIJAR
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
You didn't answer my question though, you just re-defined the subject. Let's try again...

Why is that type of weapon (semiautomatic rifles with allegedly military features) so important? How has that weapon come to define what should and shouldn’t be constitute gun legislation? Is it really that awesome of a gun?
Does it need to be “so important” to own one? What does “should and shouldn’t be constitute gun legislation” mean? What if it’s not “that awesome” of a gun? What if it’s just another gun? What would that change in your mind?

I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at here. The point is that Feinstein and Clinton are on record as supporting confiscation of the private property of individuals who have harmed or threatened no one, and committed no crimes.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
After the fact, perhaps in some cases. But the confiscation still occurred and rights were still violated, taking people's property away at a time when the ability for self-protection was at a premium. How easy was it for individuals to recover their firearms from the local PD afterward?
Constitutional rights are sometimes violated, from speech to assembly and even the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean the system failed in the end. From what I have seen in recent history New Orleans was the only time where guns were confiscated illegally on a large scale, in addition to other rights violations like detention without cause and even murder by the police. And in the end the outcome was the right one.

That rights are violated so freely by some in positions of power (that V.I. memo scares the hell out of me- context please?) is what drives a lot of the "slippery slope" concerns.
But they aren't so freely violated, New Orleans being an exception in recent history and the Virgin Islands' declaration apparently not put into practice (the declaration was as a result of a hurricane).
 

Pags

Well-Known Member
pilot
Does it need to be “so important” to own one? What does “should and shouldn’t be constitute gun legislation” mean? What if it’s not “that awesome” of a gun? What if it’s just another gun? What would that change in your mind?

I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at here. The point is that Feinstein and Clinton are on record as supporting confiscation of the private property of individuals who have harmed or threatened no one, and committed no crimes.
What I'm getting at is asking you, as one of the gun folks around here, to explain to me, as a non-gun guy (but not an anti-gun guy) why you say that the type of weapon is so important. I'm asking because I'm ignorant of why ARs have become such an object of fascination? Why do so many people have AR bumper stickers? Is it because of the logical connection between how they work with other similar weapons as Wink pointed out and that there's a logical (and technical) connection that could be seen to logically lead to the "the next bite of the elephant?"

Like I said, I'm not a gun owner and I'm not fascinated by guns. I've shot them (expert!) and have enjoyed it. I've considered owning guns but have so far decided to spend money on other things that I enjoy more. That said, I'd like to teach my kids how to shoot and to respect weapons. My daughter asked if she could shoot and I tried to take her to the local indoor range the other day but they said she was too short to get over the bench and I guess they don't have stools. Looks like she and I will have to wait for warmer weather and friend availability to shoot outside here in MD. But all this said, I still don't quite understand why this is such an issue and the vitriol on both sides of the arguments fascinates me and I'm trying to understand each side but am not getting anywhere.

I hear all sorts of arguments on this webpage from an audience that has a pretty intelligent demographic but none of it makes coherent sense to me. There's so much cognitive dissonance that quickly becomes defensive yelling. I get that it's a "right." But many of our rights have some level of common sense restrictions put on them as part of one persons rights interacting with someone else's rights. The property argument is particularly silly. Property can be taken away all the time by the government either through something like eminent domain or through something like a ban on a product due to safety or a recall.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm just trying to understand the argument. Nittany, bonus points if you can answer in LESS than three pages of text and without reference to multiple obscure SCOTUS cases :)
 
Because an AR functions like a traditional semi auto rifle. Function is the key. Get AR type weapons banned and a judge, within two years, will ban semi auto "hunting " rifles because he will find their function makes them substantially the same. It is completely logical.
I think this sums it up pretty well. To those who would argue that gun control is not a slippery slope, just take a look at CA. It's been one domino after another out here with respect to gun control leading to more gun control. Also, the US V.I. not implementing the measures in that governor's memo is hardly a point in their favor- the rights were still taken arbitrarily. Explain to me how taking people's personal firearms and ammunition is necessary for the guard to perform their duties during a hurricane, because I don't understand it.

All that said, I'm fine with background checks to ensure someone doesn't have a felony, dishonorable discharge, mental issues, ties to terrorism etc. that have been previously determined via due process as rendering that individual unfit to own a firearm. However, I also think the burden is on the due process itself, and not on "one size fits all" legislation to make entire groups declared "unfit" at the stroke of a pen. That's just reactionary "feel good" legislation that punishes far more people than it protects.
 

Pags

Well-Known Member
pilot
I think this sums it up pretty well. To those who would argue that gun control is not a slippery slope, just take a look at CA. It's been one domino after another out here with respect to gun control leading to more gun control. Also, the US V.I. not implementing the measures in that governor's memo is hardly a point in their favor- the rights were still taken arbitrarily. Explain to me how taking people's personal firearms and ammunition is necessary for the guard to perform their duties during a hurricane, because I don't understand it.

All that said, I'm fine with background checks to ensure someone doesn't have a felony, dishonorable discharge, mental issues, ties to terrorism etc. that have been previously determined via due process as rendering that individual unfit to own a firearm. However, I also think the burden is on the due process itself, and not on "one size fits all" legislation to make entire groups declared "unfit" at the stroke of a pen. That's just reactionary "feel good" legislation that punishes far more people than it protects.
Should the VI memo be read as “seize everyone’s guns” or “if the NG needs to commandeer a gun/explosive/etc in order to carry out their duties then they can.” I guess how you read it is based on how pre-convinced you are that all federal/state/local governments have pre-canned plans to seize all guns once a convenient disaster happens. I guess I’d imagine that most NG/LEOs would be far more focused on responding to a disaster as opposed to rounding up all guns. It just doesn’t pass the smell test to me.
 
Should the VI memo be read as “seize everyone’s guns” or “if the NG needs to commandeer a gun/explosive/etc in order to carry out their duties then they can.” I guess how you read it is based on how pre-convinced you are that all federal/state/local governments have pre-canned plans to seize all guns once a convenient disaster happens. I guess I’d imagine that most NG/LEOs would be far more focused on responding to a disaster as opposed to rounding up all guns. It just doesn’t pass the smell test to me.
I would hope they are, but the specific provision to seize very specific types of property doesn't pass the smell test to me. If it's so innocent, why the focus on firearms and explosives? What if the guard needs a privately owned generator or water from a private tank to perform their emergency duties? What if they need to set up shelters on someone's land? Those things weren't listed in the memo, but presumably they could do it in an emergency... right?
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Should the VI memo be read as “seize everyone’s guns” or “if the NG needs to commandeer a gun/explosive/etc in order to carry out their duties then they can.” I guess how you read it is based on how pre-convinced you are that all federal/state/local governments have pre-canned plans to seize all guns once a convenient disaster happens. I guess I’d imagine that most NG/LEOs would be far more focused on responding to a disaster as opposed to rounding up all guns. It just doesn’t pass the smell test to me.
I think it should be read for what it is, a poorly worded and possibly illegal notice of what the VING may or may not do for that particular emergency. The governor even flatly denied what he signed authorized what was in the memo when asked. I would not take it as a realistic threat of weapon confiscation and likely wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if challenged.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
But all this said, I still don't quite understand why this is such an issue and the vitriol on both sides of the arguments fascinates me and I'm trying to understand each side but am not getting anywhere.
A good part of it is probably a romantic connection. The AR-15 shares the lineage with the M-16, which begat the M-4. Both the M-16 and the M-4 have been issued for so long, many either served using one, or many see other people serving with one, so therefore it's a "thing" to covet. Add in 9/11 (and lots of cool guys with beards and sick tats) where the public has seen the M-16 family in use. The AR-15 really has become "America's Rifle" nowadays.

Functionally, it's a pretty elegant system, fairly inexpensive, incredibly modular which allows it to be like adult Legos, and pretty damn accurate and effective. The AKM has a great following, but it doesn't scratch all those itches I just mentioned.

I didn't really "get it" either until I decided to buy one to see what they were all about. As someone who enjoys manipulating machinery to make it do what I want, and to do it effectively (just like flying), I've really grown to enjoy shooting ARs.
 
I think it should be read for what it is, a poorly worded and possibly illegal notice of what the VING may or may not do for that particular emergency. The governor even flatly denied what he signed authorized what was in the memo when asked. I would not take it as a realistic threat of weapon confiscation and likely wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if challenged.
Again, all of which would occur after the fact. The damage would already be done in terms of removing a right (to bear arms) and a large piece of citizens' ability to provide something for themselves (security against an armed threat) in the "heat of the moment". Furthermore, if a potential threat knows that firearms are suddenly being confiscated, they can do what they want with more impunity. I love that this is all expected to come out in an eventual legal hot-wash, but these types of things need to be kept from happening in the first place, or the point is essentially moot.
 

picklesuit

Living the GeoBachelor dream...
pilot
Contributor
Which all leads back to my point:
If the government doesn’t know which guns I own, or whether I even own guns (had to do a background check for my son’s Marlin .22, so that means they know I intended to purchase a gun) then when they eventually come for them, they won’t start with me.

Now, my neighbor with the YouTube channel about his guns, he is probably high on the list...
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Again, all of which would occur after the fact. The damage would already be done in terms of removing a right (to bear arms) and a large piece of citizens' ability to provide something for themselves (security against an armed threat) in the "heat of the moment". Furthermore, if a potential threat knows that firearms are suddenly being confiscated, they can do what they want with more impunity. I love that this is all expected to come out in an eventual legal hot-wash, but these types of things need to be kept from happening in the first place, or the point is essentially moot.
The damage is already done whenever someone's rights are violated, fortunately we have a robust legal system to redress those violations. Again, the only time gun seizures occurred on a broader scale was in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina where rights violations of all kinds occurred, what makes the right to bear arms so much more important or special than those? And again, an exceptional circumstance that was redressed appropriately.
 
Top