TG posted in response to me:
Antis bring up FA because they know that the mention of them brings a visceral negative response from the public. They are not using machinegun regulation to get more of the same as much as they are lying to the public and telling them that non-FA is FA in order to scare them. It like using crime as a code word for race. However, you said:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto.
And I don't think they care one way or another about how these weapons (full or semi) operate rather that they want them all banned. I listened the other day to Denis Henigan of Brady and he conceded that people (even in other countries) are violent and have as much violence as we do in the USA. His point was that guns make violence more lethal and so if we reduce who can get guns it makes violence less lethal. He never mentioned FA and he didn't need to. Therefore, the fact that FA is regulated gives little if any momentum to the antis philosophically. The operation of the gun is not what drives their thinking.
You are correct that the antis don't care how the firearms operate, they want them banned. But they have to come up with "reasonable" demands to ban them. Even if they don't explicity say it, they know that the public has generally accepted the ban on full autos. Thus, if they can make semiautos and handguns appear to be as dangerous as full autos, they are convinced that the public may generally support the semi auto and handgun bans as well. They may not explicity say they want to ban handguns because it's acceptable to ban machine guns, but they go about it in a round about way. After "Heller", which was about handguns, the antis were already claiming that the USSC reaffirmed the government's "right" to ban dangerous weapons. I can't recall who said it, but they said that the USSC certainly was not giving the green light to own machine guns in their findings on Heller. Thus, handguns, which are also dangerous, may also be banned if the USSC declares them to be "dangerous and not in common use at the time". Handguns certainly are not in common use by the law abiding in D.C. We all know that.
What they do is make the claim that guns which are too dangerous, such as handguns and assault weapons, can be banned outright. They always then point to the banning of machine guns and tell us that this has been an accepted practice since 1939 and never hesitate to refer to US vs. Miller. They try to make the pro gun rights folks look radical by saying things such as, "I suppose you want to legalize machine guns too". We all know they are "legal" if they are of a certain vintage and if you jump through the hoops to own one that fits the vintage, but that's beside the point.
If you don't think the antis use the fact that machine guns have been "illegal" since 1939 to further the idea that the government has not only a "right", but a duty to ban other more dangerous firearms such as assault weapons and handguns, you aren't paying enough attention to the battle.
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
I don't see a lot of difference between a Barrett (sp?) .50 cal and a .50 cal machine gun, except that you can fire more rounds in a shorter amount of time with the machine gun.
Having fired both, I would disagree fundamentally. There is no comparision between the destructiveness of a M2 machinegun and a Barrett rifle.
If you get hit by 1 round from a Barrett .50 cal, are you any less likely to die than getting hit from 1 round of a M2? The M2 can more quickly dump rounds on any particular target, which may give it more destructive power in a shorter period of time. I'll grant you that. But the Barrett .50 cal is no slouch when it comes to busting through some material, even with 1 round. Why do the antis want to ban them? Because the anti's claim the Barrett .50 cal has too much destructiveness.
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
And I'd also like to nationalize CC permits, if we must have them, so that Massachusetts must recognize Minnesota's permits as well as other states. We do that for driver's licenses and more people are killed via licensed automobile drivers than are killed by licensed concealed handgun carriers.
You know that driver's license reciprocity is not driven by the fed? The states did it individually which is better IMO. That way it is stronger and harder for temporary national politicians to rescind. I prefer the way we do it now. State by state. TN has done a bangup job getting reciprocity in about 35 other states.
Well, I'd be all for letting the states do it, but we all know that several of them will never agree. NY, CA, IL, and several other Nordeastern states would probably never agree. If they would, then I'd agree with you that the states taking care of it would be the better solution.