I think gun control is necessary legislation, but the term “assault-style weapon” is not based on the function of a firearm or its ability to cause harm. It’s a nonsense phrase used to describe guns that look scary.
“This law would never work, simply because of the legal classification of the guns” says only country in the world where the legal classification of the guns makes the law not work
My point is that assault-style is not a legal classification at all. If you want gun control, focus on caliber, fire rate, barrel length, etc.
Nice right-wing talking point.
Every single piece of legislation addressing ‘assault-style’ weapons specifies what is and is not allowed, such as magazine and barrel size limits.
Those definitions tend to be inconsistent and strange though. They often concern themselves with things like pistol grips vs thumbhole stocks, which only impact the ergonomics and the appearance of a firearm, not the function.
And even a barrel size limit is a strange thing to regulate. Short barreled rifles are not inherently more dangerous than regular size rifles. The only reason they are regulated today is as a holdover from a piece of legislation that would have banned handguns.
I mean, so? The point is that there isn’t legislation against ‘assault-style’ weapons. Every piece of legislation specifies what is and is not allowed. Whether it impacts the ergonomics, appearance, or function of the firearm is completely irrelevant to my point.
He was trying to argue that there is no such thing as ‘assault-style’ weapons, and I countered by saying there is no legislation targeting ‘assault-style’ weapons. Each piece of legislation specifies what is and is not allowed.
Yes, but it is a problem when we discuss these things. Most people are in favor of banning “assault-style weapons”, but people’s conceptions of what that means vary wildly.
This is just like asking if people support educating kids. Everyone wants their kids to be educated, but some want their kids taught that the earth is 6,000 years old and that climate change isn’t real, and others want them taught the history of systematic oppression in America.
As for the actual bans, I’m not aware of any " assault-style weapons" bans that didn’t ban something stupid because it looks scary. Many have included magazine capacity restrictions, which you can definitely make an argument for, but also regulated something stupid, like pistol grips on rifles.
It is not on the regular population to have to figure out every single detail of how to solve a problem, especially when it is a problem we don’t seem to care about solving. Do I really need to know all the ins and outs of how guns work to say I don’t want mentally-ill teens using them to shot up schools?
Do I really need to know all the ins and outs of how guns work to say I don’t want mentally-ill teens using them to shot up schools?
Of course not. But do you want legislation to be passed so you can feel good about something being done, or do you actually want the law to make a difference? Most of what has been and is currently proposed is akin to banning dual exhaust and racing stripes to reduce deaths from car accidents.
An interesting piece of legislation for sure. (even if it is no longer in effect)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon
I suppose you’d have an argument for any of the ‘named’ firearms that do not exhibit “two or more from a set certain features (featured in link)”
Can you name any of them? :)
The features specified have nothing to do with how lethal a firearm is, that’s my point. It’s purely cosmetic bullshit.
Funny seeing how the Vatican bank has shares in Beretta.
The group of nuns filed the lawsuit in their role as Smith & Wesson shareholders
There’s actually a fair amount of discord between the Vatican and some of the nuns. There’s a strong social justice component in some subunits of the Catholic Church where they part ways with the Vatican (although I suspect less so with Francis than with Ratzinger, whose resemblance to Palpatine was not a mere coincidence).
Liberation theology is pro AK on the other hand (rightfully so)
Owning shares is actually the method they’re using to have standing to sue. It’s a shareholder suit. For those curious about which orders, it’s a teaching order, a nursing order, a Dominican order (the odd man out), and a franciscian order.
Why do you say Dominicans are the odd ones out? They have a long and storied history of caring about social justice.
For sure, they’re not quite as conservative as the Benedictines. I shouldn’t push them off like that.
Ok, but have you considered that the Trappist monks who make the really nice beer are Benedictines?
If you haven’t tried reconsider your opinion after a 6 pack of that particular ambrosia.
MAGA death threats to nuns in 3…2…
Clearly, nuns are unchristian pedophiles operating out of their nuneries for the deep state and Hillary. A nun’s habit is basically a hijab and it is nothing but women, obviously an Al-Qaeda op for a secret queer Muslim agenda. It is all in your bibles sheeple, read them!
(slow claps)
“Did your clients purchase shares with the express intent to create standing in a case such as this?”
“Of course not your honor”
“Did your clients do due diligence on their investment before purchasing their shares?”
“Yes your honor.”
“And during this due diligence, did they in fact find that the main component of the company’s business is the manufacture of firearms and had been so since 1852?”
“Yes your honor.”
“Have the sisters ever heard of Dirty Harry?”
“Your honor?”
Summary judgement for dismissal in 3…2…
Absolutely fascinating! As shareholders they have a unique standing for this suit. I’m going to be watching this closely.
Wow. Innovative way to try to force change, nuns. Regardless of how you feel about guns, this is a very interesting way to attempt to accomplish their goal.
Horrendously stupid lawsuit.
Elwood Blues: “Don’t mess with the penguins.”
deleted by creator
You didn’t get the memo? If you paint a rifle black it’s 20% more deadly.
We don’t like the first and second amendments so we will just use the courts to make them effectively obsolete. (If you don’t think assault weapons are a first amendment issue then you don’t know what the actual definition is)
Speaking as someone who knows the definition (or more accurately, that there isn’t one), it is not a first amendment issue.
Sure, if money’s speech, so are guns. Hell, violence is speech too I guess.
Interesting take. What’s the 1A issue?
‘Assult’ weapons are guns with a specific cosmetic features . Bayonet mounts, and color, the various handles. Since it is cosmetic that makes it.an expression issue and thus 1a.
Interesting argument. But features like a bayonet mount or pistol grip are functional, not cosmetic. And I’ve never seen a gun law that talks about color.
Semi-functional at best. A bayonet is just a knife on a gun, what different does it make? A pistol grip effects ergonomics, but it isn’t any more/less functional.
Right with you on the idiocy of banning features. Right with you on the “assault” weapon boolshit. But I’m not feeling the 1A expression issue.
No one’s banning colors. Handles and bayonet lugs are easily functional items.
Let’s keep this argument on the level, not try to bring in other shit.
Does that make sense?
I don’t see how the configuration and design of a firearm in terms of detachable magazines, pistol grip, bayonet, adjustable stock, or other irrelevant / superficial features included in prior AWB law counts as free speech.
(But I think I’ve disproved your first point, at least. :))
But I also don’t see how lawsuits against a firearms manufacturer based on people using them to do evil makes sense. Anymore than one would sue Ford for making the car that some sick ass hat used to run into a crowd, say. Or suing Louisville Slugger if a psycho goes on a bashing spree with one of their products.
Or amazon getting sued for selling spycameras, or the sacklers getting sued for marketing oxycotin? That sort of liability is well established. That’s why they passed laws to limit it.
God I’m glad not to be Catholic. They don’t have a legal leg to stand on, this is just throwing money away.
They do, in fact, have a legal leg to stand in. As shareholders, they can sue their board of directors for mismanagement.
The can survive the first challenge, arguing a gun company selling a popular design is mismanagement, is likely to face dismissal.
Mismanagement of what, exactly?
