Self defense not a valid reason to own a firearm

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

What is not reasonable is to classify automatic weapons with large ammunition capacities (like 30 rounds) as 'defensive'.

LOL whatever credibility you had just died right there in that sentence, good lord man in the states that required a class 3 firearms license which basically allows the ATF to show up at any time and give you a prostate exam level examination.

42 US States have no restrictions at all on firearm magazine capacity.

The Federal statute of 1994, that limited magazine to less than 10 rounds, expired in 2004.

High-capacity magazine ban From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's an example online seller of high capacity magazines in the USA: High Capacity Mags | SurplusAmmo.com (this is not an endorsement of any company but is included as an example of the current situation. If mods think this is not appropriate, please remove the link from the post.)

Here's an article about the changes to high capacity magazine sales after the expiry of the 1994 statute: The Gun Industry Is Betting on Bigger High-Capacity Magazines

I do not know anyone that isn't a gun dealer, or gun smith that ever even entertained getting one.

Gun control does not mean a blanket gun ban.

You really should read some of the doozies that the nuts in congress write when they introduce a gun control law, they dont identify a gun, they identify aspects that could be considered military in nature which are really just cosmetic.

Many guns are modular in nature and can be modded with fairly standardized retrofits. It makes sense to classify individual weapons based upon the expected damage they can potentially do, rather than assuming that they are all uniform.

Also, as has been shown by a number of posters here, the pro-gun lobby exaggerate the consequence of any attempt at regulation. For instance, in other countries that have implemented gun control legislation, they have not descended into anarchy, nor have they totally banned all guns, despite the pro-gum pundits impassioned pleas:

Overview of gun laws by nation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thats part of the reason so many people say NO at any attempt to discuss it, if they said we want to remove AR-15's and made an argument for it many would at least listen, but thats not what they do they use vague language to try and allow for the most flexibility possible.

I think that by defining things exactly, rather than making approximate assumptions, they are actually clarifying the letter of the law.

a reply to: chr0naut

I did not say we had little biodiversity.

You said you had no wild animals that could be considered dangerous. That is biodiversity! When there's not a single animal that can threaten you, you are living, by definition, in a sterile environment. Humans have little in the way of natural defenses inn the wild; we have no claws to speak of, our teeth are not designed to be weapons, and we cannot run as fast as the average animal. Add to that we have poorly-developed senses of hearing and smell, and we're just as much prey as a whitetail deer (more, really, as the bucks do have sharp hooves and antlers). Our lone advantage is our developed minds which allow us to not only use tools, but to use tools which other species cannot even comprehend... like guns.

So either you live among a diverse group of wildlife, some (most?) of whom has the ability to cause you harm, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

And, it appears, despite the firearms proliferation that could be used in effective pest control, is overrun by actually dangerous pest species. I suppose that must be because the individual states biosecurity officers cannot coordinate efforts against common threats?

Biosecurity officers?









You mean to tell me you actually have law enforcement for animals?











Stay in your lane, Karen. You don't have the slightest inkling of what "biodiversity" even is. I might as well be trying to explain quantum tunneling principles to a duck!

(Oh, and just so you'll know... fully auto firearms have been illegal for almost everyone here for a long, long, long time. Another fail.)

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

I did not say we had little biodiversity.

You said you had no wild animals that could be considered dangerous.

That isn't what I said, either, but we do have very few wild animals that pose any sort of threats to humans.

That is biodiversity!

Biodiversity has nothing to do with the dangerousness of animals.

Biodiversity | Definition of Biodiversity at Dictionary.com

When there's not a single animal that can threaten you, you are living, by definition, in a sterile environment.

Sterile | Definition of Sterile at Dictionary.com

Humans have little in the way of natural defenses inn the wild; we have no claws to speak of, our teeth are not designed to be weapons, and we cannot run as fast as the average animal. Add to that we have poorly-developed senses of hearing and smell, and we're just as much prey as a whitetail deer (more, really, as the bucks do have sharp hooves and antlers). Our lone advantage is our developed minds which allow us to not only use tools, but to use tools which other species cannot even comprehend... like guns.

Humans are, without doubt, the apex predators on the planet.

Like other primate species, who don't have spears, and guns, and knives, and many of whom are diminutive in size, these primates cooperate tactically with each other and adapt almost instantaneously, and even anticipatorily to a changes.

Once, long ago, humans did not have weapons, and fire, and lacked natural defenses as you have noted, yet still we got to where we are today. So perhaps we could hide ourselves better, and avoid danger better, and gather essentials better, than any others species.

So either you live among a diverse group of wildlife, some (most?) of whom has the ability to cause you harm, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

As I explained, diversity of biological life forms has nothing to do with how dangerous they are.

And, it appears, despite the firearms proliferation that could be used in effective pest control, is overrun by actually dangerous pest species. I suppose that must be because the individual states biosecurity officers cannot coordinate efforts against common threats?

Biosecurity officers?

You mean to tell me you actually have law enforcement for animals?

Stay in your lane, Karen. You don't have the slightest inkling of what "biodiversity" even is. I might as well be trying to explain quantum tunneling principles to a duck!

(Oh, and just so you'll know... fully auto firearms have been illegal for almost everyone here for a long, long, long time. Another fail.)

TheRedneck

You did know that the AK47, the most popular rifle type in the USA, can be easily modded to be full auto? Or other guns retrofitted with bump stocks (only made illegal in 2018) and other autoloaders?

And in parts of the US, fully automatic weapons (even miniguns) manufactured and registered before May 19th, 1986, are legal to own, if the owner is older than 21.

But it appears you didn't know that you have officers who deal with biosecurity in the USA?

Biosafety and Biosecurity in the United States - Homeland Security

Biosecurity in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With every comment you sabotage you argument.

a reply to: chr0naut

Its funny. Modifying a AK into full auto is ILLEGAL,unless you get permission from the ATF and pay to have a full auto weapon. So CRIMINALS are using illegally modified AK's. They are criminals. they do not respect the law.

Bump stocks make a weapon in accurate when used. you might as well be smacking ammo with a hammer on its primer.


BELOW is a link further explaining the RESTRICTIONS on owning a machine gun. You left out a few parts.
rocketffl.com...

a reply to: chr0naut

What is not reasonable is to classify automatic weapons with large ammunition capacities (like 30 rounds) as 'defensive'.

You said AUTOMATIC weapons... that requires a class 3 fire arms license period end of discussion, if you own a functioning automatic weapon and do not have the license then what you are is breaking the law, the magazine capacity is irrelevant.

Automatic means pull the trigger and you can empty the magazine without pulling the trigger again.

a reply to: chr0naut

You did know that the AK47, the most popular rifle type in the USA, can be easily modded to be full auto?

And yet another easily debunked lie from this member.
The AR 15 is the most portable rifle in the usa, not the AK 47.
More posts thrown against the wall, hoping to stick, waiting to be called out for the lies that they are.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I’m thinking everything they know about firearms is from Movies, TV and other propaganda avenues. Which makes for zero qualification to enter/continue a conversation. I’m waiting for the in depth report of how the gun show loophole allows for fully automatic weapons to enter the hands of teenaged drug dealers.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: shooterbrody

I’m thinking everything they know about firearms is from Movies, TV and other propaganda avenues. Which makes for zero qualification to enter/continue a conversation. I’m waiting for the in depth report of how the gun show loophole allows for fully automatic weapons to enter the hands of teenaged drug dealers.

It probably is, seeing as they have no 2a to find out themselves.
If the magic picture box told them the moon was made of green cheese they would be whining for their slice.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

You did know that the AK47, the most popular rifle type in the USA, can be easily modded to be full auto?

And yet another easily debunked lie from this member.
The AR 15 is the most portable rifle in the usa, not the AK 47.
More posts thrown against the wall, hoping to stick, waiting to be called out for the lies that they are.

You are correct and I was wrong. The AR15 is the most popular semi in America. I was thinking AR15 and wrote AK47. Apologies.

It is still a highly modular semi-auto.

a reply to: chr0naut

That isn't what I said, either, but we do have very few wild animals that pose any sort of threats to humans.

Then most of your animal life is domesticated.

In nature, everything is in balance. Herbivores eat plants; insectivores eat insects, and carnivores eat herbivores and insectivores. That's how it works. All medium to large carnivores can be dangerous to humans; that was my point when I talked about our lack of natural defenses. Therefore, all of your medium to large carnivores must be domesticated. Further, domesticated species do not lead to much biodiversity.

As an example, here we have herbivores such as rabbits, squirrels, deer, chipmunks, groundhogs, beavers, etc. We have insectivores such as armadillos and several species of birds. Left alone, they would quickly overpopulate. But we also have bobcats, foxes, coyotes, weasels, coons, and even the occasional mountain lion (aka puma, aka cougar). They are necessary to keep the other populations in check. Left alone, they will rarely attack a human. However, anyone with any concept of how nature works understands that it only takes one attack when one cannot defend themselves to create a whole world of hurt, or worse.

We even have omnivores such as black bears and feral hogs (razorbacks). The hogs are scavengers, but they are not very picky about eating two-legged meals either. Hunters usually keep most of them in check, and any who venture out of the couple of valleys that are infested with them are quickly dispatched by locals. How does one dispatch a feral hog? With a very large caliber chunk of lead moving at a very high speed. A few brave (or foolish, depending on one's perspective) souls hunt them with bows and arrows, but very few, and they are accomplished at using tree stands for protection. No one takes on an angry razorback with anything less and lives. Period.

That's biodiversity: a wide range of animal life of varying species, all living in harmony. Take away the predators and you do not have biodiversity; you have a zoo... a very sterile zoo at that.

As for why our "biosecurity officers" don't simply get rid of these dangerous creatures? Excuse me a moment...









... sorry, had to get that out...

... the reason is that they can't. Wildlife (undomesticated wildlife anyway) is quite good at camouflage and not being where one wants them to be. That's how they survive. I can walk out my back door and I am literally 50 feet from a few hundred acres of undeveloped, mostly undisturbed wilderness. That's one small pocket of wilderness among thousands in this general area, most larger, some quite a bit larger. I know of one area 5 minutes from my house by car that tops 1000 acres, including a wildlife preserve. Go another 5 minutes and there's an entire mountain, tens of thousands of acres, where the spots are a few houses on a few acres of cleared land and everything else is wild.

That's what life is like here... not manicured cattle pens like you apparently have.

Humans are, without doubt, the apex predators on the planet.

Only because of our intelligence. We are able to create and use devices to protect ourselves. Without those devices, we hide in trees and hope whatever is chasing us can't climb... or we're a nice buffet.

Once, long ago, humans did not have weapons, and fire, and lacked natural defenses as you have noted, yet still we got to where we are today.

Once, long ago, humans struggled against the constant threat of extinction. Our numbers stayed pretty much constant and low until we started developing weapons. The stronger our weapons became and the more we conquered different habitats, the faster our population grew.

You did know that the AK47, the most popular rifle type in the USA, can be easily modded to be full auto? Or other guns retrofitted with bump stocks (only made illegal in 2018) and other autoloaders?

You did know that modifying any firearm to fully auto is also illegal already? And yes, that includes bump stocks. You made a point of them only becoming illegal in 2018; the reason was because they were slightly outside the legal definition of "fully automatic firearms" and therefore required a new law to outlaw them. Why did it take so long? It really didn't... someone found a loophole, you know, the kind of loophole that criminals like to exploit according to you?

So what's going to stop these same kind of people from doing the same thing and find yet another loophole? And when they do, we'll have to wait unti someone you despise gets in office in order to get anything done about it... the Democrats certainly weren't screaming about bump stocks until Trump pushed the issue. I had never heard of them.

As for the grandfather clause, it is really meaningless now. Yes, fully automatic firearms purchased and manufactured before 1986 are legal to own... by the original owner at the time. They are still illegal to transfer except to someone licensed to own a fully automatic firearm (a very, very small and select group that mostly includes wealthy collectors and registered gunsmiths and gun dealers), and all transfers are tracked and approved by the ATF.

That means only people who have had these guns for at least 35 years and have never used then in the commission of any crime still have them. Are you concerned they'll suddenly, after 35 years, go on a killing spree?

TheRedneck

‘Defensive’ is exactly the type of weapon the private citizens are ENTITLED to own

Because ‘self defence’ IS a valid reason to own a firearm

The 2nd A is not about sport hunting or animal control

Regardless what cNn (or some whackjob) says