Village Bans Semi-Automatic Weapons, Residents Must Remove From Home Or Face Up To $1,000 Fines — Per Day

[jg121783 3,921]

33 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  The banned list is semi-automatic. Is there some reason people couldn't use other firearms to defend themselves? 

A law abiding citizen defending themself with a muzzle loader against a criminal (or criminals) with ARs or semi auto handguns? They better know how to reload that muzzle loader quickly.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Then it should be called an assault firearm, or an assault gun.  Weapons can come in many forms and all of them can be used in an assault.  I suppose that doesn't fit the political narrative though...sad. 

Don't some firearms manufacturers use the term? Assault firearm I have also seen to be honest, and I have no problem with that. I still wouldn't call a hammer or a car an "assault weapon", and no definition of the term would apply to those items.

 

I do think it's fair to make the distinction between items that have non-violent purposes but that can be used for violence (pretty much everything), and items that only have violent purposes. Yes certain knives and other non-firearm weapons would be included in that, but I still think that is an important distinction. We can't except to regulate things like cars in quite the same way as firearms. That should be obvious and common sense.

Edited April 5, 2018 by bcking

[Sonea 138]

5 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

A law abiding citizen defending themself with a muzzle loader against a criminal (or criminals) with ARs or semi auto handguns? They better know how to reload that muzzle loader quickly.

To be fair to muzzle loaders you can buy one with 10 shots.

[Dashinka 24,766]

Just now, bcking said:

Don't some firearms manufacturers use the term?

 

Assault firearm I have also seen to be honest, and I have no problem with that.

 

I do think it's fair to make the distinction between items that have non-violent purposes but that can be used for violence (pretty much everything), and items that only have violent purposes. Yes certain knives and other non-firearm weapons would be included in that, but I still think that is an important distinction. We can't except to regulate things like cars in quite the same way as firearms. That should be obvious and common sense.

I know a lot of people that use "assault weapons" to put food on their table for their family.  Then of course there is the whole self protection aspect.  I see a guy in London had to use an assault screwdriver to protect him and his wife from some armed intruders, but he most likely will be prosecuted. 

 

It really doesn't matter what functions an object can do, when a human wields them in anger to assault another person it is an assault weapon.  I don't need political narratives to give me some LOCS definition of a word, it is self-explanatory.

9 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

A law abiding citizen defending themself with a muzzle loader against a criminal (or criminals) with ARs or semi auto handguns? They better know how to reload that muzzle loader quickly.

Never bring a knife to a gun fight!

[Dashinka 24,766]

Just curious about the OP, will this apply to the businesses headquartered in Deerfield and their security teams?

[Ban Hammer 13,508]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

You can't say "by definition" if there is no definition for assault weapon that meets that description. Find me a dictionary that establishes that definition. It's the exact opposite - It is not by definition.

 

Assault weapon is used to refer to particular types of weapons. I think you will find it just refers to types of firearms.

 

Any item can be used as a weapon in an assault...that doesn't make that item an assault weapon.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

"The only misuse of guns"

Was the operative phrase. I don't think misuse is limited to accidents.

You’re right, misuse is NOT an accident.  And it has nothing to do with guns.  It’s the intent of the human that is the issue here.

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

This would sound unconstitutional even to a second grader.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

15 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  IIRC from a previous thread, wouldn't people who need the banned weapons just start a new village?

Why should they have to?  Why is someone trying to take away an INALIENABLE RIGHT?

 

Same argument could be used for people who are not happy with the US.... they should just leave.  But you have spoken out against this in the past as unfair.  So, too, is this ruling and your subsequent response.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

You can't say "by definition" if there is no definition for assault weapon that meets that description. Find me a dictionary that establishes that definition. It's the exact opposite - It is not by definition.

 

Assault weapon is used to refer to particular types of weapons. I think you will find it just refers to types of firearms.

 

Any item can be used as a weapon in an assault...that doesn't make that item an assault weapon.

When you stat using the term “assault rifle” correctly, then you can correct another’s use of the term “assault scissors” or “assault hammer”.  Assault weapons have never been used to kill anyone in the US in recent history.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Why should they have to?  Why is someone trying to take away an INALIENABLE RIGHT?

 

Same argument could be used for people who are not happy with the US.... they should just leave.  But you have spoken out against this in the past as unfair.  So, too, is this ruling and your subsequent response.

 

  I don't think I have ever spoken out against anyone leaving the US if they are unhappy. Feel free to link though if you recall something I don't.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

9 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I don't think I have ever spoken out against anyone leaving the US if they are unhappy. Feel free to link though if you recall something I don't.

No, but you have spoken out against people who have suggested to people who are not willing to follow the rules or who complain about what they have to put up with here that they leave the US.  Same principle applies to gun restrictions in this village, and your suggestion that people jsut move to a new home to overcome it.

Edited April 5, 2018 by IDWAF

[Unidentified 2,930]

19 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Mostly thru honest citizens, I would imagine.  But also, the police may be able to access gun registry data they the NCIS or FBI (not sure if this is possible, or legal).

Why would Naval Criminal Investigative Service handle gun registrations of civilians? You mean NICS?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

No, but you have spoken out against people who have suggested to people who are not willing to follow the rules or who complain about what they have to put up with here that they leave the US.  Same principle applies to gun restrictions in this village, and your suggestion that people jsut move to a new home to overcome it.

 

  Nonsense. I rarely even participate in those threads.

 

  For the record though, starting their own village is not my idea. The MDR brought this up in a previous thread. I actually said it wouldn't work, so good that you see that now.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

Why would Naval Criminal Investigative Service handle gun registrations of civilians? You mean NICS?

Yeah, you got me.  I suspect the Navy would do a much better job, truth be told!