paint it green to get around it.

Regulate the function of the device.

Ban the thing that makes the device so attractive to those who intend to misuse it.

Ban semi-automatic weapons with removable magazines.

One and done.

...that will sink more Democratic candidates.

for someone who endorsed Republicans over Democrats

detachable magazines?

Folks rightfully attack Trump for wanting to deport millions of illegal immigrants. How will you identify them, hold them, etc.? Leaving aside the police state that would have to be created, it would also be a logistical nightmare.

Yet when you ask gun banners how they will get rid of literally* tens of millions of semi-auto firearms that accept detachable magazines that are owned by, again, literally* tens of millions of Americans, you either get crickets, or some retort like, "Oh yeah, I can see you with your rifle defending against a tank, or a drone strike, blah blah blah." Gun banners get pretty blood-thirsty imagining all the gun owners who would need to be killed in order to usher in their new gun-free utopia.

(Not accusing flaming lib of being this type, mind, but I wonder if they have considered all the ramifications of the policies they advocate.)

*And yes, I'm pretty confident that I am using "literally" correctly here.

standard mag was integral to the receiver. That changed quickly with appropriate modification. I believe a modified Model 8 was used to dispense with Bonnie & Clyde.
In any case, a good woods hunting rifle.

EDIT: I wonder, since Reuters didn't clarify, what the "gun lobby" is in Europe.

It's the NRA. They are globally dominant and seeking to increase their influence to other planets...



... or so I hear.......

...than someone who obfuscates and denies they want to ban guns.

"Ban semi-automatic weapons with removable magazines. "

Straightforward and honest. It's refreshing.

Absolutely violates the 2nd Amendment, and utterly unenforcable, of course.

But thanks for plainly stating what 99% of the gun banners lie about.

Nice regurgitation of gun lobby talking points tho . . .

on edit:
Speed limits are impossible to enforce too. So are stop signs. Still we have them. Wouldn't the commute to work be a lot more exciting without them?

...ONLY enforceable laws should be enacted?

By "enforceable" do you mean nearly or 100% enforceable?

you would indeed have an enforcement problem. And a backlash at the polls.

Keep making asinine comparisons, makes you look real gooooooooood.

is as quixotic as pushing for a nationwide 35-mph speed limit. Detachable-mag semiautos are *the* quintessential civilian gun.

Scaremongering about rifles is especially quixotic.

Rifle Homicides in the United States, 2005-2015

..."One small step for control; one giant brain fart for mankind."


If gun deaths are really a problem, let's make that point by expending a ridiculous amount of time and effort to alienate some folks whose cooperation is vital to actually make progress and completely ban the type of gun that is used least in these crimes.
Is a tag even necessary here?

detachable-magazine pistols, in addition to Canada/Europe-legal detachable-magazine rifles and shotguns.

From your posts, your top priority does appear to be banning rifles, though, which is sort of like banning Volvos to stop car accidents..

"...carrying any gun for any reason anywhere."

Further down in the thread there's talk about laws against murder. "Hey, those are unenforceable too, so let's get rid of them, you stupid gun humper," is where the argument usually leads.

But murder is not the same thing as owning a gun with too many cosmetic features. Neither is theft, or rape, or any number of act considered malum in se. To claim that they are is to be completely out of touch with reality, which is what that argument does.

We the people have delegated to the government the power to initiate the use of force. We pass laws against murder and other crimes, have the police track down suspects, and have the courts decide guilt and punishment because otherwise you have roving lynch mobs making those decisions at the end of a noose.

But along with that is a responsibility that the laws that are passed, for acts that are malum in se or malum prohibitum actually make sense, and are reasonable, and the punishment fits the crime.

And threatening me with a felony conviction and 1, 5, 10, whatever years of prison time (which is what is usually recommended as punishment in these laughable "assault weapon bans&quot for owning a firearm with the wrong number of features, when some other crimes where people are actually being harmed, physically or financially, result in far lighter sentences, is the very definition of an extreme, unreasonable, tyrannical "law", and it deserves to be flauted, and fought against in the courts and legislatures.

And it is why, in part, Democrats keep losing elections.

Semi automatic and removable magazines.

Yes, it is constitutional to outlaw guns based on simple features. The full auto machine guns have been all but legislated out of civilian hands. Short barreled rifles. "Sawed off" shotguns.

Yes, civilians can own these weapons but they are so heavily regulated that criminal use is all but non existent. I would like to see semi auto guns with removable magazines regulated in the same manner.

all guns with removable magazines are banned. We see a 10 or 15% drop in firearm-related homicide and suicide. What would you propose at that point? Would we look at causes other than Firearms to further reduce violence or would we look at restricting any firearm capable of more than one shot without being Reloaded?

As I asked in a response to another poster...

How will you get rid of literally* tens of millions of semi-auto firearms that accept detachable magazines that are owned by, again, literally* tens of millions of Americans?

Even the much vaunted Australian mandatory gun buyback scheme only netted about a third of the number of prohibited firearms that were covered by the new law, IIRC. The number of gun losses due to tragic canoeing accidents will go thru the roof. How will you be sure you have gotten them all?

*Again, I'm pretty sure I'm using "literally" correctly here.

The banned guns will fall into three categories:

1. Sold back or otherwise disabled. There are a few law abiding gun owners.

2. Discovered in a crime and destroyed after it is used for evidence.

3. Hidden in the bottom of someone's closet in which case it isn't going to harm anyone. Goal accomplished.

The third option will eventually be part of an estate that will either move it to another closet or the heirs will surrender it for destruction.

Time.

We can just ride out the wave of murder and mayhem until rust and termites take the last.

Seems this problem is not as urgent as your make it out to be.

I'll not dignify any further discourse on this topic with you.

...most gun banners would not be so... passive in their enforcement of that law.

The vast majority of those type of firearms are never used in crimes, never harm a single person, yet you want to make them illegal. I commend you for your honesty but I still do not understand this belief that disarming the law abiding will make crime drop. Especially when we have had huge increases in the number of guns owned (and, I believe, percentage of gun owners, turning around a declining trend up until this decade, certain "studies" to the contrary), and we are at or near historic lows for crime and murder rates.

CT passed a law requiring that 'assault weapons' be registered. Law abiding citizens that they are only 10% complied. The rest have done exactly what I said, keep them on the down low. But should one be used in a crime it is going to be confiscated and the owner charged whether involved in the crime or not.

Oh, and I said GUNS, not rifles. People in this forum repeatedly tell me that pistols are the gun of choice for bad guys with guns.

Which would include handguns, of which pistols are a subset.

Regardless, does your own example not tell you that the law in CT is actually an abysmal failure? "Assault weapons" continue to be owned by the 90% of those who have not complied. Also, there are other firearms available that are functionally similar, yet are different just slightly enough to not be swept up under the ban. BTW, that's one reason (among many) why the federal 1994 ban was such a joke, and also useless.

Yes, your category is much more comprehensive: semi-autos that accept detachable magazines. That can be handguns, rifles, or shotguns. It's also why it would be much more likely to be struck down as unconstitutional under the 2nd, as it would be affecting a broad range of firearms. "Assault weapon" bans are more likely to be attacked by being unconstiutionally vague, not necessarily under 2nd amendment grounds, though it can encompass that line of questioning.

Anyhoo, I doubt you'll get much traction on banning all detachable mag semi-autos. I'd wish you luck, but, well...

SCOTUS has twice refused to hear a challenge to 'assault weapons' bans indicating that they agree with lower courts up holding them. I've cited other precedents of types of guns being regulated out of virtually all civilian hands. Still you insist on making blanket statements about what the SCOTUS will do.

I give up. You will believe what ever you want.

...rarely give up simply because their goals are unreasonable and/or unacheivable...

And that Canada has considered and resoundingly rejected such bans? As has Norway, Germany, France, Switzerland, Finland, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, etc. etc. etc.

Semiautomatic actually doesn't matter in terms of misuse; back when criminals mostly used 6-shot revolvers and manually operated shotguns, our murder rate was roughly twice what it is now. And if all semiauto rifles and shotguns were magically replaced with Australia-legal pump-actions, it wouldn't save even a single life.

Merely owning a working AK, however, is a completely different matter.

I think I'll hold on to mine.

And such bans will be banned.

Bookmark this thread, because you heard it here first.

the shining example of sane gun laws, is sounding like the U.S.

The surprising thing, at least to some, is that such guns are available there. From what we have heard it would be expected everything more than a highly restricted, licensed single shot was already banned.

British can only own semiautomatic shotguns and .22's, but they are the exception, not the rule.

The reporter is confused, though; M16's and whatnot are as tightly controlled in Europe as they are here.

Such trivial legal stuff as defining what you want banned crops up again -- in Europe. Of course Reuters has no problem defining the "most lethal semi-automatic assault weapons." Maybe the EU ought to hire Reuters to clarify the language. That way, it could delineate the difference between Remington 742, or the hoary old Model 8, or the hoariest of all, the "Ought Three" .22. Science in action!

Let's redefine the banning of murder, so they can make it more illegalerer.

After all, murderers are criminals and EVERYBODY KNOWS that criminals don't obey laws so only law abiding citizens are penalized by murder laws.

exactly!

The questions, rather, are how constitutional they are, and how effective they are in terms of their stated goals, esp. if enactment results in negative blowback. Otherwise, laws, for better or worse, are public notice to all of the consequences of their violation.

...the control part of gun control is a myth, a lie. I say that because in the same way that murder is difficult to get away with, crimes with guns overall are difficult to get away with. But they are not difficult to commit in the first place, so the criminals who use guns are not "controlled" at all by such laws.

Besides that laws don't really exist as controls, they are criteria for the courts to use in the trial and conviction process.

Both in Europe and here.

Rifle Homicides in the United States, 2005-2015

Understanding firearm terminology especially the difference between semiautomatic firearms and the fully automatic or select fire weapons used by the military does not requre the reporter to be a rocket scientist or brain surgeon.

If a reporter can not understand a simple subject such as how firearms work how can we trust him to give us accurate information on far more complicated subjects?