Circular logic. ROFL

[Fitz]

In a discussion on Fark about California's proposed new "assault weapons ban" which includes any rifle with a detachable magazine, one of the antis first posted that "limiting the guns in civilian circulation would prevent criminals from getting them."

When asked why, then, do police need weapons, he said it was to "protect themselves and the populace from criminals who might get guns through other avenues."

It's almost as if.... we've already thought of that, and come to the conclusion that because of the ingenuity of criminals, bans are ineffective! Inconceivable!

One other anti raised an interesting idea, from a thought experiment standpoint more than practicality. He suggested allowing private ownership of military "assault weapons," including machine guns, and banning handgun ownership.

Although it's an idiotic idea, it raised an interesting thought in my head. Would I care so much about a handgun if I was allowed to open carry a real, burst firing M4 throughout my day to day life?

[Fitz]

Note: i know that any such "compromise" would eventually turn into a complete ban because of the antis creeping incrementalism. But it's fun to think about.

If you could carry only an automatic rifle, and not a handgun, would you feel better or worse protected?

[Tallpine]

A handgun is a lot more practical to carry 

[Perd Hapley]

One other anti raised an interesting idea, from a thought experiment standpoint more than practicality. He suggested allowing private ownership of military "assault weapons," including machine guns, and banning handgun ownership.

Although it's an idiotic idea, it raised an interesting thought in my head. Would I care so much about a handgun if I was allowed to open carry a real, burst firing M4 throughout my day to day life?

No thanks. I've carried an AR all day, for days at a stretch. I suppose you have, too. Do not want.

[RevDisk]

Although it's an idiotic idea, it raised an interesting thought in my head. Would I care so much about a handgun if I was allowed to open carry a real, burst firing M4 throughout my day to day life?

I'll take both.

[Fitz]

I'll take both.

Me too


Part of me thinks we should adopt the anti tactic of creeping incrementalism.

"Ok, we'll give up 'xxx' in exchange for 'yyy'"

Then later, legislate away the restriction on xxx

[freakazoid]

What if the handgun is a machine gun?

[White Horseradish]

What if the handgun is a machine gun?

I would carry a Stechkin. It might be a mite cumbersome, but not terribly more so than any other full size handgun.

[brimic]

What if the handgun is a machine gun?

Can I haz Beretta 93r?

[vaskidmark]

Yes, handguns are convenient.  And often full-on military style shoulder-fired automatic weapons are a bit too much for the circumstances.

But if it comes down to A or B (no other choice) I'm thinking that since The Powers That Be are going to opt for the long guns I ought to have something approaching parity.

stay safe.

[brimic]

But if it comes down to A or B (no other choice) I'm thinking that since The Powers That Be are going to opt for the long guns I ought to have something approaching parity.

Parity would mean howitzers, tanks, AA battery, and GE miniguns. Think big!

[cordex]

Part of me thinks we should adopt the anti tactic of creeping incrementalism.

"Ok, we'll give up 'xxx' in exchange for 'yyy'"

Then later, legislate away the restriction on xxx

Compromise doesn't work very well.  It's harder to win back rights than prevent them from being lost in the first place.

Plus, antis don't really compromise.  They ask for "just a little bit more" each time and are interested in giving little or nothing in return.

[AJ Dual]

Yes, but the point is we, or by "we" I mean our pro-RKBA pol's with some stones need to throw "what do we get in return?" whenever an anti-gunner spouts off about "compromise".

This would at least do some damage control with drilling the meme into the brains of the unwashed masses of fence-sitters that we and the NRA and whoever else is "refusing to compromise", and at least take away the "compromise gambit" from the anti's.

[cordex]

Yes, but the point is we, or by "we" I mean our pro-RKBA pol's with some stones need to throw "what do we get in return?" whenever an anti-gunner spouts off about "compromise".

This would at least do some damage control with drilling the meme into the brains of the unwashed masses of fence-sitters that we and the NRA and whoever else is "refusing to compromise", and at least take away the "compromise gambit" from the anti's.

"You get to help save the lives of innocent women/children/whomevers from the next tragedy that will be prevented when you pass our Eliminating Violent Instruments Law."
I get what you're saying, but the rhetoric on the other side is that the proposed legislation is Reasonable, Rational, and Necessary, and anyone who wants to compromise on such a wonderful law must be unreasonable or irrational.  They get the best of both worlds.

[Tallpine]

We could accept a ban on plastic gun barrels in return for full auto 

[Fitz]

We could accept a ban on plastic gun barrels in return for full auto 

There's a thought

"Sure, criminalize 3d gun printing... but in return, reopen the MG registry"


Knowing full well that actually prosecuting 3d printing of guns is an impossible thing.

[RevDisk]

There's a thought

"Sure, criminalize 3d gun printing... but in return, reopen the MG registry"


Knowing full well that actually prosecuting 3d printing of guns is an impossible thing.

Better yet, criminalize "illegal 3D gun printing" (ie nothing that doesn't already violate the law) in return for reopening the MG registry.

[Balog]

We accept a full ban on porcelain pistols, level action rifles, and any gun with the thing that goes up. In return, repeal all of GCA and NFA.