Quote:Well, a few things. First, a ban on such weapons and clips might well mitigate damage, However, as I stated in another thread (sorry if this is repetitive), while I think such weapons are of little distinct value outside of a battlefield, my libertarian side (hmm, is that the one on the left shoulder or the right ) is hesitant to call for a ban without a really strong justification. And as I state, that is not due to the second amendment. A case could be made for far more stringent gun control being in line with the second amendment in my opinion. Simply opposition to decreasing people's rights. But I think it is up for discussion. Would saving 100 lives justify such a ban? 100,000? It is not as simple a utilitarian calculation of course, but those might be considered points for discussion.


Also, just another note. that comment about gun violence. I was talking with a buddy the other night regarding the whole 'assault weapon' and magazine size thing (he is partial to Glocks), and he said that the stats like the ones you quote also include suicides. Just mentioning that, because, if I recall correctly, the most expansive list I have seen that explicitly filters mags and AR's, from Mother Jones, limits the impact in mass shootings to 1/3. But for suicide, it might have zero impact, and for any other scenario where you use a gun for violence, I am not sure what difference such a ban would make.


Finally, the whole watch list thing has its own issues. I will merely start by stating it is my understanding that such a restriction would have had no impact the Orlando case, or an any other mass shooting in America. Correct me if I am wrong. Also, while this might be more of a black swan thing, could such a restriction be used inversely? Say an individual was planning something REALLY bad. Could applying for a gun and being denied tip them that they were under surveillance, or would this be the same as the no-fly list? This ine might be out there, but it popped into my head as a possible unintended consequence.

Lol, I was hoping you'd repost your thoughts I this thread from the other thread.


To me, reducing the number of mass killings by 33% or whatever the amount may be is worth the loss of choices of arms to bear.


I agree with you and out conservative friends that barring entire groups of people that are but on "a list" which is not transparent and open to public scrutiny is an awful idea and clearly is unconstitutional based on due process alone.


So I circle back to military style or modern sport rifles, or whatever cute term one may want to attach to these arms...


As we all know, there are already restrictions on the type of arms one can buy. Let's look at fully automatic guns, they are illegal. Are you less free because you don't have one? Next, consider the argument that if you make it illegal, then only the bad guys will have them.


In regard to mass shootings, how many of the shooters or terrorists used an automatic? I believe the number is very close to zero. So that argument does not hold water to me.


At the end of the day, if a military weapons and ammo ban lessens the number of mass killings by any significant amount, it's worth doing.


In the previous iteration of the weapons ban, a small group of folks could own these arms. Why not allow gun ranges to own these weapons, that way people could go shoot them when they wanted to?


Living in New Mexico, I know a ton of guys that hunt. None of them go out with their tactical arms to hunt elk or other game they get licensed for.


Therefore, if one is only using these types of arms at the range, why not make them range only weapons that must stay with the business?


That's my take on it...

---