Defending Semiautomatic Long Guns With Detachable Box Magaznes

[Pond James Pond]

The crucial difference is that cars have great utility value but also happen to be inherently dangerous, noisy, dirty, and prone and using up natural resources.

For me the biggest difference is that almost everyone finds cars relevant and useful in his or her life. They don't feel that way about guns.

As such, despite more deaths from cars (in Europe, at least) than from legally held guns, for most people the idea of banning or emasculating the car market is unthinkable, because it would make their lives harder.

It wouldn't if guns were banned and so the proposition sits far better with people.

It is the curse of vast, globalised societies that their citizenry can rarely think beyond the confines of their own lives and interests: they let politicians do that for them and then accept the outcomes.

 

[LogicMan]

Here is how I've been handling that argument with left-leaning lawyers. I don't know that it is effective but it is about all I have patience for these days and usually concludes the conversation nicely.

1. Are you going to pick up a rifle and go disarm all those rednecks yourself? If yes, then reply "Good luck with that" and make mental note. If "no" then step 2.

2. Are you going to give the same police you believe to be racist murderers of nonwhite people and/or fascists the money, weapons and power they need to disarm said rednecks on your behalf?

So far, the conversation always ends here with some variation of "BUT WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!" or silence as they consider those options.

That deals more with confiscation though, not drying up the legal supply of such weapons.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Folks always miss this in the car/doctor/gun debate.

That is the core usage of each.

Cars are for transport - deaths are a screw up and side effect
Doctors - save lives and deaths are a screw up and side effect

Guns - designed as weapons to kill. A prime core concept. Spare me sports and tools - those are side effects.

That's why folks feel differently about the deaths caused by each. It is the intentionality behind the deaths. A mechanism who intention is to harm is different from the bus or the doc.

Yes, your gun is a tool and it's a modern sporting rifle - blah, blah. The argument has no strength to folks seeing horror and is not relevant to the 2nd Amend. usage. That is as a lethal weapon.

 

[LogicMan]

"Smart guns" to cars is a false analogy IMO, because for one, legislators aren't hellbent on outlawing cars, or various cars no one "needs," such as sports cars. In addition, the operation of the car is generally not tied to the various safety features, nor do said safety features exponentially increase the price of the car. For example, the car can operate just fine without you putting on your seatbelt. It can operate just fine without an airbag. I believe it was tried back in the 1950s of making it where a car couldn't turn on without the seatbelt on, but too many found it complicated and complained.

For cars to be comparable to "smart guns," the following would need to be true:

1) Adding airbags and/or seatbelts increases the price of the car 3x-5x. So a $20,000 car goes to $60,000

2) The airbags and/or seatbelts make it where the car often won't start, and the brakes often fail to engage

Some of these regulations of cars actually do harm the ordinary citizen, the diesel emissions regulations are some examples, because the diesel engines in newer vehicles have so many sensors and electronics and are so complicated that a few years down the line, if something goes wrong, the mechanic can have trouble figuring out even just what is wrong. This is a problem a co-worker of mine has had with his diesel.

 

[LogicMan]

If you're arguing about self-defense you need to save your breath. The need for the citizenry's right to keep and bear arms has no relationship to self-defense. The need is to protect the citizenry from an oppressive government.

Ask them if they have ever studied history and have any idea what "democide" and "genocide" are. Then ask them if they know any former German Jewish citizens who have a government tattoo on their arm. If they don't know one personally, direct them to one and have them repeat their question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history


German police shooting women and children from the Mizocz Ghetto, 14 October 1942

Remind them that governments have killed more of their own citizens than have been killed in all wars combined and have them explain to you why they are so eager to give some bureaucrat that control over their families' lives.

That argument just makes you look paranoid to anti's, because they respond that the chance of anything like that happening in the United States anytime soon is slim-to-none. Also, self-defense IS a major portion of the right to keep and bear arms. It is one of the most fundamental of all rights, and was believed in by Aristotle, Cicero, Algernon Sydney, and John Locke, the four most influential men in the writing of the Declaration of Independence according to Thomas Jefferson. The reason self-defense isn't mentioned in the Second Amendment is because it was so blatantly obvious a reason as to why people would possess arms.

It would be like saying that the First Amendment says nothing about criticism of the government in mentioning protection of the freedom of the press.

 

[zukiphile]

Folks always miss this in the car/doctor/gun debate.

That is the core usage of each.

Do they miss it, or just not agree with it?

Cars are for transport

Partly. They are also an expression of the owners aspirations. I live in a neighborhood teaming with giant all wheel drive SUVs that don't climb anything more challenging than the grocery store apron. The fellow I see a few days a week getting on the highway just ahead of me in his Porsche Panamera goes the same 60mph I do because traffic doesn't let him treat the road like an autobahn.

Make a teenager drive a minivan and see from his reaction whether it suits his purpose.

Doctors - save lives and deaths are a screw up and side effect

Kermit Gosnell - not a big life saver.

Guns - designed as weapons to kill. A prime core concept. Spare me sports and tools - those are side effects.

Sports are not a side effect of killing. Guns are designed to shoot. Some are optimal for paper, some sink ships. The ones optimised for use on people are to stop people immediately. Death is the side effect unless one intends to kill.

Yes, your gun is a tool and it's a modern sporting rifle - blah, blah. The argument has no strength to folks seeing horror and is not relevant to the 2nd Amend. usage. That is as a lethal weapon.

That would be compelling if the text of the amendment limited the protection according to use.


You are correct that people feel revulsion at some intentional homocides, but that is true independent of the instrument used.

People might carry a sort of platonic ideal, a pattern by which they identify a specific item, of a car, doctor or gun, but even one's general idea of "gun-ness" doesn't hinge on killing another person with it.

 

[44 AMP]

The reason self-defense isn't mentioned in the Second Amendment is because it was so blatantly obvious a reason as to why people would possess arms.

I would point out that the Second Amendment is NOT the reason we have a right to arms for personal and public defense. It is a natural right, often referred to as a "God given right".

What the 2nd Amendment is, is a restriction on our government (shall not be infringed) and A reason (not THE reason, but A reason) why that is important.
(necessary to the security of a free state...)

People today sneer at the idea that private citizens and their arms could defeat our government forces who have machineguns, tanks, jet planes and even nuclear weapons. And I will admit that the odds or winning in an open battle seem slim. BUT, that's not, and never was the point.

if we have the armed ability to resist, we will never need to actually USE it, because no sane government would go so far as to force its people into that position. This was the logic of the Founding Fathers.

the other side of that coin is that if we allow our ability to resist (ownership of arms) to be taken from us, then what does a tyrant need to fear?? Our VOTES???? Bad press from a media they control?? Not being well liked???

None of those will stop the sturmtruppen from kicking in your door. None of those will stop a "president for life" from doing what ever they want to do. Why make their job easier???

 

[2damnold4this]

1 Rifles of all types are rarely used to murder someone. Knives, blunt objects and fists are more commonly used in murders than rifles of every type, not just semi-autos with detachable magazines. link

2 The rifles used in the San Bernardino murders didn't have readily detachable magazines. They were compliant with California's assault weapons ban and required a tool to remove the magazine.

3 The federal assault weapons ban didn't lower crime rates. link

I'm sure there are more

 

[LogicMan]

People today sneer at the idea that private citizens and their arms could defeat our government forces who have machineguns, tanks, jet planes and even nuclear weapons. And I will admit that the odds or winning in an open battle seem slim. BUT, that's not, and never was the point.

Usually the same ones who say that are the ones that were telling us up and down that the might of the U.S. military could never bomb ISIS, back when it was only 40,000 strong, out of existence, that you have to send in ground troops, and it would be too much of a bloodbath, etc...or that invading Iran is nuts because it's 80 million people, but yet we are to believe that a tyrannical government with a military of equivalent capability to the U.S. military would be able to run roughshod over a nation of 310 million citizens in possession of arms.

A resistance force consisting of less than 1% of the American people against such a government could be one million strong. But yet all those bombs, drones, aircraft, etc...couldn't destroy 40,000 untrained terrorists but would somehow destroy said resistance.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Are you explaining a civil right,....

A problem with the civil rights approach --

• To most people this is about civil rights --
  
  
  • 
    
    
    and
    
    
  • 
    
    
    and
    
    
  • 
    
    
    and
    
    
  • 
  
  
• On the other hand, folks generally don't see this as about civil rights:
  
  
  • 
    
    
    and
    
    
  • 

 

[Pond James Pond]

if we have the armed ability to resist, we will never need to actually USE it, because no sane government would go so far as to force its people into that position.

This was doubtless the rationale of the Founding Fathers penning the 2nd A the way they did, but the reality on the ground now is that the only real defence against an authoritarian regime coming into being lies with the courts.

They're the ones that presently hold sway over the fate of the 2nd A and it is they that would be used to disarm the population, whether the motive is protecting a regime from its people or protecting the people from themselves as some see it today. It would never be about govt troops against an armed citizenry at least not in the sense some imagine it might be.

Whilst I don't believe that anti-gun advocates today have totalitarian ambitions, successful action on their part now would of course be making life easier for anyone with less altruistic political goals who may or may not crop up in the future.

In other words, the 2nd A for me is as much a symbolic pillar of a free society since judicial respect and recognition of it represents judicial respect and recognition that power lies with the people.
Hence, the courts, and thereby the law, hold the key.

 

[zukiphile]

A problem with the civil rights approach --

To most people this is about civil rights --

Frank, that's an excellent illustration of how mistaken a majority can be about the importance of civil rights.

 

[45_auto]

Three wolves and one sheep voting on whether or not the shepherd should have a gun IS democracy, but its not really fair to the sheep.

Perfectly fair to the sheep if the sheep was stupid enough to agree to government by democracy. Possibly that was in the mind of the founding fathers when they established a republic instead of a democracy, although it seems that today very few people know the difference. It was basic high school Civics 50 years ago.

That argument just makes you look paranoid to anti's, because they respond that the chance of anything like that happening in the United States anytime soon is slim-to-none.

And the anti's will point out that the chance that anyone will "need" a magazine-fed semi automatic rifle for personal self-defense is even slimmer than slim-to-none. A 6 shot revolver or 10 shot pistol will be plenty. Bolt actions are fine for hunting.

You've painted yourself into a corner and you're going to lose every time you depend on that argument.

 

[ATN082268]

And the anti's will point out that the chance that anyone will "need" a magazine-fed semi automatic rifle for personal self-defense is even slimmer than slim-to-none. A 6 shot revolver or 10 shot pistol will be plenty. Bolt actions are fine for hunting.

Arguing with that kind of logic for the 2nd Amendment would be like arguing that you don't need to talk about certain topics such as government policies and that's all you need for your 1st Amendment rights. And claims like you need to belong to the National Guard for the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms to apply to you makes about as much sense as saying something such as you need to belong to Fox for the 1st Amendment freedom of the press to apply to you.

 

[carguychris]

A resistance force consisting of less than 1% of the American people against such a government could be one million strong. But yet all those bombs, drones, aircraft, etc...couldn't destroy 40,000 untrained terrorists but would somehow destroy said resistance.

Speaking of which, we also tend to forget an important angle to the insurrectionist or militia argument: the RKBA helps avert the possibility that the military will try to overthrow the elected government. For this reason, numerous Founding Fathers had well-documented reservations about even having a professional military at all.

IMHO their fears were well-founded; it only takes a casual glance at the last 100 years of world history to reveal which government institution is almost always behind a coup d'etat.

Frank, that's an excellent illustration of how mistaken a majority can be about the importance of civil rights.

+1, because it reveals the thorny underside of the civil rights argument: the question of whether political violence is justifiable. Just about everyone can agree that it would be justifiable for a Jew in 1944 Poland, a Tutsi in 1994 Rwanda, or an Armenian in 1917 Syria. It gets more controversial for a black in 1964 Alabama or a Jew in 1948 Palestine. It's always about who could foment the violence and why. The problem is not necessarily the guns themselves, but rather who has them.

I believe that gun control in the United States today has far more to do with a fear of political violence than its proponents are willing to openly and publicly admit, although I think they're getting close to doing so, to a greater degree than anytime since the 1920s and 1930s when open bigotry against racial minorities and the labor movement / leftists was socially acceptable. IMHO it's really not about simple street crime anymore.

IMHO this makes the insurrectionist argument a tough sell even if it's fundamentally sound on its merits.

 

[44 AMP]

While discussion of our fundamental rights is important and connected to the issue, we are getting a bit afield from the OP, which was essentially, how do we respond to this...

Their argument is that such weapons are not needed by any civilian and are only tools of mass murder.

There are a number of ways to respond to this kind of thinking. NONE of them are going to change the mind of the fanatic "true believer", but might have some influence on the uncommitted 3rd party listener.

Some responses (in no particular order) are..

"only tools of mass murder." So, why is there something that is only a tool of mass murder in virtually every police car in your state??? AND ON THEIR HIP???

After all, the only real difference between detachable box magazine fed semi automatic rifles and detachable box magazine fed semi automatic handguns is their size. (power and range although important to us, are not big points in the discussion).

Handguns, by virtue of their size are easily carried and concealed, and are equally "only tools of mass murder", which is something the anti's hammer on, when they are going after handguns. TODAY the target is rifles, Yesterday it was handguns, and likely will be again tomorrow.

Semi autos have been on the market for well over a century, but now, TODAY, they are suddenly "only tools of mass murder".

IS every cop a potential mass murderer? Is mass murder part of their JOB??

Then why are they armed with tools of mass murder AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE??

"well, the police are different, they have training"...etc." ARE THEY?, Really??

A blue suit (or black or urban camo) and a badge doesn't make them any different than the rest of us, we are all human beings, (despite some people's opinions ) with all the potential for good AND evil found in our species.

Cops are NOT God, they aren't even doctors who think they are God. They are people who are doing a job. A low paying, dangerous, often thankless job, that I wouldn't do, but its still a job. This is not cop bashing, its just an honest appraisal of reality. Being trained, wearing a uniform, a badge, and having been "cleared" by background check(s) does not make you a immune from evil.

A "tool of mass murder" does not become anything different when it is in the hands of someone paid to carry it. They cannot have it both ways.

If it is "only a tool of mass murder" in the hands of a civilian, then it is also one in the hands of the Police.

Question for those who know the CA laws, are not detachable mag semi rifles ALREADY prohibited?? What is the "bullet button" law if not that??

SO, they are going after all semis, and wording about magazines is just a smokescreen??

Remember we are dealing with people who do not believe there is any legitimate use for ANY firearm, unless you are wearing a uniform, and or a badge, in which case, they are necessary tools for protection.

Many of these people, seem intelligent, otherwise, and a number of them have money, and influence, and egos that tell them what they "know" is right, and anyone disputing that is making a personal attack on them.
(not just limited to the gun control issue)

anyway, this is just one avenue of response, there are several others.

 

[carguychris]

A blue suit (or black or urban camo) and a badge doesn't make them any different than the rest of us, we are all human beings, (despite some people's opinions ) with all the potential for good AND evil found in our species.

This is a particularly acute point with regards to Orlando because Mateen HAD the requisite licenses to wear a uniform and a badge!

 

[speedrrracer]

That argument just makes you look paranoid to anti's, because they respond that the chance of anything like that happening in the United States anytime soon is slim-to-none.

And the whole "slim-to-none" thing is silly. The chances of an earthquake, war (actual war, not the endless series of bad decisions in which we've been mired), etc are all slim-to-none, but we buy insurance and maintain our military and do all kinds of behaviors "just in case".

An example is the whole environmental movement -- it is predicated on concern for future generations, and so it is with our stewardship of the portion of the 2A which focuses on the right to resist tyranny. Obv that's not happening anytime soon (drama queens howling from both sides of the aisle to the contrary), but we keep the right alive for those distant, future generations because we're smart enough to learn from history, which tells us how badly it sucks to be under the heel of tyranny.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank, that's an excellent illustration of how mistaken a majority can be about the importance of civil rights.

Even so, it undercuts the effectiveness of the civil rights argument.

The political effectiveness of a civil rights argument is based on empathy. Whites empathized with Blacks suffering indignities and deprivations trying to do ordinary, benign, everyday things that Whites valued and took for granted -- drinking from a clean water fountain, going to school, eating at whatever restaurant they chose, riding a bus, voting, etc.

What non-gun owners empathize with the gun owner having to fill our forms and jump through hoops to buy a gun? What non-gun owners empathize with me being unable to lawfully buy a standard AR-15 with a 20 round magazine?

...IS every cop a potential mass murderer? Is mass murder part of their JOB??

Then why are they armed with tools of mass murder AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE??

"well, the police are different, they have training"...etc." ARE THEY?, Really??

A blue suit (or black or urban camo) and a badge doesn't make them any different than the rest of us, ....

I suggest avoiding this type of argument. To be a police officer today one must go through an arduous and intrusive selection process.

For our police department in our small community of some 80,000, a police officer goes through the following background check:

• A background interview with a panel of senior officers;
• A psychiatric evaluation;
• A polygraph examination;
• His friends and neighbors are personally interviewed.

Other PDs seem to have similar protocols.

1. National City, California (population 55,000) PD includes
   • oral interview
   • background investigation including educational, employment, financial, criminal, and driving histories.
   • Voice stress analyzer examination
   
   
2. Orlando. Florida (population 235,000) PD includes
   • oral interview
   • polygraph examination
   • background examination
   • medical examination
   • psychological examination
   
   
3. Austin, Texas (population 715,000) PD includes
   • oral interview
   • background investigation
   • polygraph examination
   • psychological interview
   • physical assesment
   • drug testing

And if someone is hired as an LEO --

• He will be on probation for at least a year and carry out his duties under the close monitoring of a field training officer.
  
  
• He will work under the supervision of his supervisors in a highly structured chain of command and subject to detailed policies and procedures.
  
  
• As a condition of employment, he does not have a right to remain silent. He is required to cooperate with any investigation of his conduct, and he must answer questions. In some cases he can be required to submit to a polygraph examination.

...Mateen HAD the requisite licenses to wear a uniform and a badge!

I believe he was a private security guard. Was he vetted using the same process as Orlando police officers? I suspect not.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Police officers are a necessity of life.

Thus, we accept the evil principle of them carrying arms.

But even their psych evaluations fail at times, as we see with some officers.

Armed civilians are not a necessity, no need for them.

- Antigun argument ^

-- Saying that self-defense is a natural right, is basically an opinion. It is not a law of the universe like E=mc**2. It is religious in nature.

Not all traditions accept the natural right argument. IMHO, the 'right' is a social construct that must be justified in a way that convinces most people in a democracy or the subset that is in power.

Without self-defense or defense against tyranny or defense against foreign invasion (or insurrection), you really have no justification for such deadly implements.

For most self-defense - well, a SW Model 10 will suffice. How many folks here denounce and mock those who carry more than 5 rounds? You are nuts, you are a commando. If you can't do it in 5 you are a clown. Blah, Blah.

So why then do you need a 30 round mag, you round spraying, paranoid Bozo and Ah-nuld wannabee?

One reason is that things can get more intense (Nah - you're nuts and paranoid). Or you might be faced with multiple opponents (defending your home - as Blacks did against Night riders), looters OR tyranny.

Oh, that will never happen here. Just look at Germany - 1913 - ultra-civilized. 1936 - home of the monsters. Oh, if it came to that, you would be helpless anyway as one of the 21 B-2 bombers would drop a bomb on you.

Whatever. I've yet to here most pro-gun major politicians be able to offer a cogent and informed opinion in favor of the 2nd Amend.