Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

[TimothyC]

In order to get rid of the handgun ammo bound book requirement, we gave up brand new machine guns.

Do you understand why, now so many are "no more compromises?

No, because I don't see where the problem is here - what is the problem with "no more brand new machine guns"? Please, just a sentence or two instead of a wall of text. If you can't explain it in 25 words or less it's obfuscation.

Legal MGs are not used in crimes & inflation for sellable ones is insane (25k+ for a crapsack one).

Nineteen words. To break it down further, legal machine guns have been used in just a couple of crimes, and one of those was a cop shooting an informant. All of them are registered (since the 1934 NFA), and because you can't make new ones that can be sold between people the cost for one is radically higher than a semiautomatic version of the same gun (25k vs 500 is the floor I often hear).

[Lonestar]

No, because I don't see where the problem is here - what is the problem with "no more brand new machine guns"? Please, just a sentence or two instead of a wall of text. If you can't explain it in 25 words or less it's obfuscation.

I feel as if you are being intentionally obtuse by going "what's the big deal about reversing compromises in the past?". It establishes a pattern of bad faith negotiating, but then, that's a common trend I see with anti-RKBA.

When people mean "compromise" on this subject what they really mean is "we get some of what we want and you get nothing in return, except a vague hope this has pushed off confiscation for another decade".

[TheFeniX]

Did anyone watch the recent Democrat debate?

Link to transcript

Lots of fun stuff there.

IMO Buttigieg, Warren, and Castro are the kinds of gun control proponents the DNC needs to be propping up and telling the rest to STFU.

WARREN: So, look, I want to get what works done. I want to use the method we used, for example, with machine guns. We registered them, we put in a huge penalty if you didn't register them, and a huge tax on them, and then let people turn them in, and it got machine guns out of the hands of people.

The ban on machine guns was uneeded IMO, but that's irrelevant. It worked as best it could in the U.S. Maybe expansion of background checks, red flags laws, and mandatory reporting with consequences when the ball is dropped WON'T lead to the drop in gun crime (violent crime in general) that I believe it will. It WILL however have a chance of passing without costing the DNC tons in political capital and, related, will cost the GOP capital in fighting it. And it will ease Gun Control naysayers into more restrictive legislation down the road.

"Ban most popular rifle in the country with mandatory confiscation" is such a moronic position to take I have to assume the person saying it is doing nothing but virtue signaling or is just an uninformed idiot and actually thinks this is possible.

[Gandalf]

At least Castro had the good sense to mention state violence. Weirdly, nobody followed him up on it.

[MKSheppard]

Changing things around slightly in the order of reply.

Please, just a sentence or two instead of a wall of text. If you can't explain it in 25 words or less it's obfuscation.

There's a very specific reason I posted those huge walls of text previously (the Vox article and then the entire segment of the 15 Oct 2019 DNC debate that dealt with Guns.)

They're too important to be reduced to a simple soundbite or 1 sentence snark.

The Vox article lays out exactly why "compromising on Universal Background Checks" means "we'll come back next year to get more" from the anti-gunner's point of view.

The 15 Oct 2019 DNC debate is important because of what everyone there is NOT saying. Nobody's saying "Hey, Beto, shut up with your crazy plan to ban the most popular rifle in America for the last ten years running, please."

As for your "25 words or less it's obfuscation"; the average character length of an English word is 5 characters. You're asking us to distill something into 125 characters on average; 15 characters less than Twitter.

No, because I don't see where the problem is here - what is the problem with "no more brand new machine guns"?

In 1968; the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) passed; and it established the entire regime that gun dealers and gun owners live under to the present day (with minor changes).

Many of those changes came in 1986 with the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. (FOPA).

I'll detail some of those changes.

A.) GCA 1968 established a "bound book" registry of Ammunition Sales. If you bought ammo, you had to record your name and address, plus type of ammunition bought with the dealer/store. For rifle ammunition, this only lasted a few years; into the mid 1970s. However, the "bound book" registry was kept for handgun ammunition. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 eliminated this registry for handgun ammo after eighteen years.

B.) GCA 1968 established the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division of the IRS as the main regulatory agency controlling firearms according to the laws laid down in GCA. In 1972, the division was transferred out of the IRS and became an independent bureau within the Treasury Department as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF).

Through the 1970s, BATF established a reputation for screwing around with gun stores and other people licensed to trade in firearms as a business (Federal Firearms Licensees = FFLs). There were a few congressional hearings on how BATF was abusing their power to "inspect" the premises and records of FFLs. This led to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 placing hard limits on what and where BATF could do with FFLs -- BATF was limited to I believe one or two inspections every business year, during posted business hours.

C.) Shipment of ammunition through the mail was banned by GCA 1968. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 removed this; once again allowing mail order ammunition sales.

D.) GCA 1968 placed restrictions on the sales of rifles by FFLs -- you were limited to purchasing rifles in your home state and surrounding contigiuous states. For example, as a Maryland Resident, under 1968 GCA; I can only buy rifles in DC, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Delaware.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 removed the contigious state requirement -- Thanks to this, I can drive to South Carolina, and buy a rifle there if it's legal in Maryland as well.

E.) The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 also included protections for intrastate travellers.

Let us say that Pennsylvania bans the "AWESOME YEET CANNON .45" pistol. It's legal in Maryland and Ohio (my destination). FOPA 1986 protects me from getting jacked by Pennsylvania police (in theory) for possessing the "AWESOME YEET CANNON .45" pistol while I am driving through Pennsylvania to Ohio.

F.) The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 had language prohibiting the Federal Government from keeping a registry of firearms linking them to their owners (other than National Firearms Act weapons).

Against this; the "HUGHES AMENDMENT" (Hughes) was slipped into FOPA 1986 as a 'poison pill' to try and prevent the bill from passing via a voice vote.

Hughes made machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986 illegal for civilian ownership.

What this meant was a slow motion ban of machine guns via pricing them out of the average American's worth.

Before May 1986, this was the pricing for machine guns in America:

Colt CAR-15 Select Fire: $1500 (plus tax stamp)
M1A1 Thompson Select Fire: $400 (plus tax stamp)
German MG-42 Belt Fed MG: $1,500 (plus tax stamp)
StG-44 Sturmgewehr: $800 (plus tax stamp) -- cheap because nobody made 7.92mm Kurtz.
Browning M2 HB .50 Cal HMG: $1,000~ (plus tax stamp)
Converting your Semi AR to Full Auto: $200 tax stamp; plus cost of new parts. (Form 1)

Thirty Three Years later, here are the costs:

AR-15 Select Fire: $20,000 (plus tax stamp)
M1A1 Thompson Select Fire: $23,000 (plus tax stamp)
German MG-42 Belt Fed MG: $55,000 (plus tax stamp)
StG-44 Sturmgewehr: $35,000 (plus tax stamp)
Browning M2 HB .50 Cal HMG: $34,000~ (plus tax stamp)
Converting your Semi AR to Full Auto: ILLEGAL.

Basically, we compromised in 1986 by making Machine Guns effectively impossible for the average person to obtain (albeit in a few decades).

What did we get?

Well, 30 years later:

A.) California just passed ammunition background registry checks (hello there bound book again!)

B.) Many Democratic politicans are calling for bans on mail order/online ammo sales.

C.) Many Gun Control advocates are calling for rescinding the parts in FOPA 86 that restrict the BATFE to about 1 visit per year to a FFL during their posted hours; saying that more regulation/inspection of FFLs is needed to stop "Crime guns".

D.) FOPA 1986's interstate provisions generally have little teeth in certain Northeastern states.

E.) We have a Democratic presidential candidate (Joe Biden) calling for semi automatic weapons to be placed on the National Firearms Act registry.

##################################

Another issue for many people is a little noted fight in the 1994 Brady Bill.

The 1994 Brady Bill originally had a waiting period for purchases from gun dealers before you could pick up your firearm.

The NRA waltzed in and said: "THIS IS AN INFRINGEMENT ON A RIGHT. WE DEMAND AN INSTANT BACKGROUND CHECK FOR SALES FROM GUN DEALERS!"

Gun Control Advocates: "..............---.........--...Okay!"

25 years later, and just about every gun control advocate is talking about Universal Background Checks.



With all this background, you can see why many people are "Keine Kompromisse".

[MKSheppard]

"Ban most popular rifle in the country with mandatory confiscation" is such a moronic position to take I have to assume the person saying it is doing nothing but virtue signaling or is just an uninformed idiot and actually thinks this is possible.

Other people have said this on other boards and I agree with it:

That a lot of what the front runner Democratic candidates (O'Rourke especially) are saying isn't to win this cycle, but rather to shift the Overton Window to the left, via normalising talking about certain things (actual confiscation of certain weapons, etc); so that in 2024 or so, when the decks are clear again on all sides; they can make their moves.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Legal MGs are not used in crimes & inflation for sellable ones is insane (25k+ for a crapsack one).

(For the record, right off the bat I want you to understand I am not a "ban all guns" type of person. I am in favor of sensible gun control measures, but am perfectly happy admitting I am rather ignorant on the issue in terms of defining precisely what "sensible" means. I probably swing pretty close to Alyrium on this issue, as I often do, but generally speaking this isn't a political issue I care much about, and as such haven't spent a lot of time researching it. Just want to state that upfront clearly so you get where I am coming from.)

I have to admit I've never really understood this general argument, about how since legal guns (whether machine gun or otherwise) are not often used in crimes, laws to restrict the volume of legal guns in circulation are pointless. I mean, it's not like illegal guns appear out of thin air; at some point in that gun's life-cycle it WAS purchased legally, before whatever series of illegal transactions transpire. So it stands to reason that any bottlenecks in availability on the legal side WILL have the downstream effect of limiting the supply of illegal guns.

Whether or not this is the most efficient way of dealing with the problem is an open question (and I would guess that it is not). But it still rankles me a little when this argument is framed the way you have, because it always feels to me to be a bit of a strawman. I mean, yeah, we understand that the guns being used most often in crimes are illegally purchased, but it's not like we can very well regulate that black market directly. I think there are plenty of valid criticisms you could level at gun control laws, but to me the whole "legal guns aren't used in crime" just seems like a pretty hollow rebuttal.

I feel as if you are being intentionally obtuse by going "what's the big deal about reversing compromises in the past?". It establishes a pattern of bad faith negotiating, but then, that's a common trend I see with anti-RKBA.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time mapping your response to what Broomstick said, so perhaps I am missing some important piece of context. What previous compromise is being reversed? It just feels to me like immediately claiming that the other side has nefarious intentions and will always refuse to compromise seems about as bad faith as it gets ...

[MKSheppard]

No, because I don't see where the problem is here - what is the problem with "no more brand new machine guns"? Please, just a sentence or two instead of a wall of text. If you can't explain it in 25 words or less it's obfuscation.

I'll humor you.

Rupp v. Becerra:
"Accordingly, the Court concludes that semiautomatic rifles within the AWCA’s scope are virtually indistinguishable from M-16s and thus are not protected by the Second Amendment."

That passage is 28 words instead of 25.

If AR15s = M16s, why did we give up the ability to get M16's at reasonable prices in 1986 in exchange for a lot of other things in a "compromise"?

[Broomstick]

Except... semiautomatic rifles are, today, still legal to obtain in the US. There are two stores within walking distance of where I currently live where I can purchase an AR-15.

So that's a non-answer.

Rupp v. Becerra will undoubtedly be appealed, and even now only applies in California.

Again - what is the problem with "no more brand new machine guns"? It's NOT the same as purchasing a revolver or semi-auto anything. Purchasing a fully automatic gun has been extremely difficult since the 1930's and OMG! the world has not ended, people can still buy guns, if anything the carry laws have gotten more lenient in many places. There can't have been much of a market for "brand new machine guns" in th 1980's anyway, given how few people were licensed to own them, and even now you CAN, if you want to go through the effort (and you have no black marks against you) and pay the money you can get licensed for a fully automatic. It's just very difficult.

[Broomstick]

Changing things around slightly in the order of reply.

Please, just a sentence or two instead of a wall of text. If you can't explain it in 25 words or less it's obfuscation.

There's a very specific reason I posted those huge walls of text previously (the Vox article and then the entire segment of the 15 Oct 2019 DNC debate that dealt with Guns.)

They're too important to be reduced to a simple soundbite or 1 sentence snark

Right. You can't explain your position in plain English. Got it. So you bury people in endless posts. YOU assume that a sentence or two has to be snark. Why is that? Is it that you are incapable of providing a brief explanation of your position?

I don't have a gun fetish. I'm not interested in spending hours a day reading whatever you think might be pertinent. I have other things to do, like making a living.

Unlike you, I don't think the 2nd amendment should be without limits. No other right is without limits - there are limits to free speech, freedom of religion, and so on. There should also be limit on who gets to own weapons for the safety of everyone else who has to live next door to the gun owner and might be hit by stray bullets if the owner is irresponsible/crazy/whatever. We can certainly argue about where those limits should be, and that's entirely fine.

So.... I see no reason to loosen the current laws on civilian ownership of automatic weapons. I'm fine with them being the way they are.

[Broomstick]

No, because I don't see where the problem is here - what is the problem with "no more brand new machine guns"? Please, just a sentence or two instead of a wall of text. If you can't explain it in 25 words or less it's obfuscation.

I feel as if you are being intentionally obtuse by going "what's the big deal about reversing compromises in the past?". It establishes a pattern of bad faith negotiating, but then, that's a common trend I see with anti-RKBA.

I didn't ask about past compromises. I ask what is the problem with no more brand new machine guns?

Seriously, you can't take that one sentence at face value?

I don't have an "anti-gun agenda", I'm just asking a simple question. I'm not immersed in this debate the way the pro-gun or anti-gun groups are, I'm not even going to attempt to claim to have as thorough a knowledge of the history of all the issues as you guys do.

From my viewpoint, it's like being upset civilians can't purchase a mortar launder, or drive a fully armed tank down main street. Or are you going to argue there should be no restrictions on those?

[TimothyC]

I mean, it's not like illegal guns appear out of thin air; at some point in that gun's life-cycle it WAS purchased legally, before whatever series of illegal transactions transpire.

Not actually true. A new, automatic weapon, made by someone who isn't a properly certified FFL (defined upthread), is infact, illegal from the moment of production.
I'd also note that prompt (under 48 hours after discovery of the theft if you are an FFL) reporting an NFA item as being stolen is required under BATF regs.

Again - what is the problem with "no more brand new machine guns"?

Because people want them, and there is no technical reason for them to cost an order of magnitude more than a semi-automatic.
And because it is something that could be done, that wouldn't increase the risk to the public, as a sign of compromise. It's about giving something to get something.
And also because the anti-RKBA side has moved against the protections for the RKBA side in FOPA.

[Broomstick]

Again - what is the problem with "no more brand new machine guns"?

Because people want them, and there is no technical reason for them to cost an order of magnitude more than a semi-automatic.
And because it is something that could be done, that wouldn't increase the risk to the public, as a sign of compromise. It's about giving something to get something

Thank you. That was exactly the sort of concise summation I was looking for.

Of course, there's a counter-argument that "you can't always get what you want". That could lead to a long debate right there, about a lot of things.

Pricing: yes, there is no reason based on the materials and expertise involved in making such a gun for a larger price, but price isn't always based on material costs. There are many things in life that cost more than they "should", and many reasons why that is so. Some reasons are good, some crap. Higher price does limit access but that's often not a good way to limit access - the perpetrator of the Mandalay Bay mass shooting had the money to get around that sort of access issue, as an example, although he chose bumpstocks over overtly illegal weaponry.

And, of course, there ARE people who are concerned that allowing new machine guns would, in fact, increase the risk to the public. I'm not sure about that point, not having done any research on it. "Machine guns" haven't really been an issue in the US since the 1930's, as Shep pointed out, there have been vanishingly few incidents and most of those have involved rogue law enforcement, not civilians, even though there are in fact some automatic weapons in civilian hands.

And also because the anti-RKBA side has moved against the protections for the RKBA side in FOPA.

OK, you lost me with the acronyms. I'll have to look them up later.

[TimothyC]

Thank you. That was exactly the sort of concise summation I was looking for.

To be clear, I've said nothing that isn't in the posts above by Lonestar and Shep.

Of course, there's a counter-argument that "you can't always get what you want". That could lead to a long debate right there, about a lot of things.

Well, the Anti-RKBA side can't always get what they want either, but they never think about that. Instead we have had a system that only moves in one direction.

OK, you lost me with the acronyms. I'll have to look them up later.

RKBA = Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the people that support said right. Often used as a way of changing the language of the discussion by re-affrming that the rights are held by the people, as opposed to the "gun rights / gun control" language used in the past.

FOPA = Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

The 1986 Act provided for the removal of some of the more onerous parts of the 1968 GCA (Gun Control Act) such as: BATF's (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms) more onerous inspection requirements, 'Bound Book' lists of all ammunition sales, prohibition on mail-order sales of ammunition, and a prohibition on people only being able to buy a long gun in either their home state (for you Indiana), or in a 'surrounding state' (for you, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, or Illinois). It also provided for the legal safe private transportation of arms through states (previous to this, if you lived in Ohio, and were going hunting in New Hampshire, you had better hope that you don't get stopped in New York by the cops who could take your gun).

What was added, at the last minute, was an attempted poison-pill by banning the production of new transferable (read: sell-able between private individuals) machine guns. This Amendment, the Hughes Amendment, was intended to kill the bill by making it so that the pro-RKBA side wouldn't vote for it. However, the things in the bill that were good were considered to outweigh the thing that was bad, and the bill was passed, and signed.

The problem is that states (mostly those in the north east like New York & New Jersey) are known for harassing travelers who are otherwise legally transporting their firearms, and California has gone and required that all ammunition sales be documented.

Thus, if the the compromise that was reached in 1986 isn't valid anymore, then everything about it should be on the table, or it won't be 'compromise' but a salami-slice reduction in the right to keep and bear arms.

[Broomstick]

I realize (now that I have a better understanding) much of what you wrote has already been said, but I must commend you, again, for your ability to summarize clearly and concisely the root issues here. Thank you. I have a much better understanding now.

[TimothyC]

I realize (now that I have a better understanding) much of what you wrote has already been said, but I must commend you, again, for your ability to summarize clearly and concisely the root issues here. Thank you. I have a much better understanding now.

One thing that does need to be understood on top of what I have posted above if you want to actually grasp the nature of these discussions is this:
Due to the nature of actions by anti-RKBA side over the last 50 years they have demonstrated not only a lack of good faith, but outright bad-faith in discussion and legislation of these issues. This is why "compromise" is now met with "Ok, what will you give me back first?" A limiting of what the anti-RKBA side asks for is no longer an option. This is why the compliance rate with the NY SAFE ACT is in the low to mid single digits.

[Marko Dash]

or to summarize the cake analogy. every time the word 'compromise' is brought up in regards to gun control it hasn't meant 'give/take' it just meant less take, and then a another round of take, and another, and another, etc...

there's been almost nothing but take and very little give. what little give there has been is just a restoration of something that was earlier taken, and that is then used a bargaining chip to then take something else.

[Broomstick]

One problem I see between the two sides here is that (according to my recent searches on the topic) about 2/3 of the households in the US don't own guns, making the RKBA side a minority these days. Now, RKBA side does seem to vote more often, and definitely has a better political lobby in some respects, but being outnumbered is partly what's leading to the nibbling away of gun rights and other forms of weaponry are also affected - for example, some places prevent civilians from carry pepper spray or shock defenses even though they, too, can provide self-defense for people. The focus is primarially on firearms, but those aren't appropriate for everyone. Since I believe self-defense is a valid reason to be armed I have concerns about the right to self-defense being crippled by the elimination of most methods of doing that.

[Raw Shark]

Man, moving back to Massholistan after two decades in Gunolaro is weird. My last girlfriend there tasered me in the head and almost pistol-whipped me in an argument about Honey Nut Cheerios, and here I need a permit to even Google where to buy ammunition. These great states of ours are an expansive and diverse land.

She seriously did taser me in the left temple. I will never dox anybody, but if you can avoid Pink Hardhat from my description I consider it a strong suggestion.

[TimothyC]

Since I believe self-defense is a valid reason to be armed I have concerns about the right to self-defense being crippled by the elimination of most methods of doing that.

I have good news for you then. In 2016, The Supreme Court issued their decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts. In that case, Ms. Caetano had been arrested for having a stun gun in violation of state law after using the presence of said device to stop an abusive former partner from attacking.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the Stun gun was not protected under the second amendment because it was not a type of weapon in use when the amendment was authored. SCOTUS took the case, and didn't even hear arguments about it, but smacked the state down HARD (per curiam, 8-0).

[Bedlam]

Since I believe self-defense is a valid reason to be armed I have concerns about the right to self-defense being crippled by the elimination of most methods of doing that.

What weapons are there that can only be used in self defence and never to make an unprovoked attack on someone?

[Broomstick]

There aren't any, so far as I know. What made you come up with that question? I certainly never qualified my statement with such a requirement.

[Bedlam]

There aren't any, so far as I know. What made you come up with that question? I certainly never qualified my statement with such a requirement.

You said that you believed that self defence is a valid reason to be armed, given any weapon with which you can defend yourself can also be used to attack someone that does basically mean that anyone can be armed at any time to protect themselves from everyone else who is armed to defend themselves. Wouldn't it be better to try and engineer a situation where people don't need to be armed?

[Batman]

Why waste time thinking about a situation that will never happen? For as long as human beings exist there WILL be situations where they need to defend themselves from other humans. The only way to avoid that is to eradicate the human species. Thus it behooves us to make it possible for people to do that in as nonlethal a manner as possible. While people can kill one another with pretty much everything, some tools are more lethal than others and taking less lethal tools away only encourages people to go for the more lethal ones (like guns)

[Broomstick]

You said that you believed that self defence is a valid reason to be armed, given any weapon with which you can defend yourself can also be used to attack someone that does basically mean that anyone can be armed at any time to protect themselves from everyone else who is armed to defend themselves. Wouldn't it be better to try and engineer a situation where people don't need to be armed?

Yes, that would be grand. So would easy and cheap FTL, and while we're at it, I'd like some penalty free telekinesis, a post-scarcity society, and a pony. Frankly, of all of the above, I'd say the pony is the only one possible.

Don't get me wrong - if there are things to be done to reduce aggression, conflict, and crime those are worthy of being done. Just don't get the delusion that you're ever going to completely eliminate the above.

You can attack someone even if you're completely naked and unarmed save for what Mother Nature bestowed upon you at birth. That's part of the problem, actually - we're all capable of violence towards another. Unfortunately, there is vast disparity in peoples' natural weaponry. Some folks are bigger, stronger, faster, etc. than others. Artificial weapons are a bit of an equalizer.