ATF may Ban Importation of Certain Semi-Auto Shotguns

[Lemur]

I do not have a problem with background checks, stamps, or any other reasonable hoops put in place to ensure only appropriate sales that one must jump through in order to gain access to the more exotic weapons as long as there is a clear path to ownership for law abiding citizens.

So speed bumps or hoop-jumps are okay ...

[L]aw abiding citizens should be allowed to own and operate whatever arms they want without restriction.

... but straight-up restrictions are not. Okay, I think I get it. Thank you for the clarification.

Given that position, as long as a law-abiding citizen has a reasonable avenue for getting, say, non-imported weaponry, would you be okay? Or would your position encompass the ability to buy from whatever source, so long as the safeguards you describe are in place?

[PanzerJaeger]

So speed bumps or hoop-jumps are okay ...


... but straight-up restrictions are not. Okay, I think I get it. Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, I would be less hostile to this decision if the ATF decided to require a stamp for high cap imported shotguns. It would still be ridiculous, as I do not see any pressing public safety threat from such weapons, but at least they wouldn't be arbitrarily banned outright.

Given that position, as long as a law-abiding citizen has a reasonable avenue for getting, say, non-imported weaponry, would you be okay? Or would your position encompass the ability to buy from whatever source, so long as the safeguards you describe are in place?

Well, as a collector I obviously want access to imported weapons. From a strictly legalistic perspective, I don't really know what the difference is as imported weapons are subject to the same government oversight and restrictions as domestically manufactured ones.

[Lemur]

We'll need to wait for CR to come back. He seems to have done a good bit of reading on this subject. Me? I treat it like Chinese history. Too big to engage casually.

[Beskar]

We'll need to wait for CR to come back. He seems to have done a good bit of reading on this subject. Me? I treat it like Chinese history. Too big to engage casually.

It's more like the Poetry of Genghis Khan for me. Just because he wrote a poem, it doesn't excuse the mass slaughter, genocide, blood-lust and wild ways of his character.

[woad&fangs]

PJ, I consider your ideas to be a reasonable alternative. Legal hoops to jump through to acquire high capacity foreign weapons could possibly be just as effective at gun-violence control as an outright ban, while still allowing law-abiding citizens to get guns that are enjoyable to shoot.

My reductio ad absurdum was mostly to feel out whether you were in the "No Rezrtictions Evah!" camp, or simply disagreed on how or when to limit weapons.

[Strike For The South]

We'll need to wait for CR to come back. He seems to have done a good bit of reading on this subject. Me? I treat it like Chinese history. Too big to engage casually.

That's what the ladies tell me

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obesity is nothing to be proud of.

Seriously, it seems that this ban won't materialize. Hooray! The price on Saiga shotguns did jump hundreds of dollars in some spots over the nation mainly because of the one blog post I linked, though.

In regards to restrictions I consider acceptable; I think instant background checks to prevent violent felons and people who have been involuntarily committed to an institution are acceptable.

I do not think the current restrictions on full-auto weapons are good. People should be able to buy them just like any other gun. They're not deadlier, just more fun at the range.

This stamp registration nonsense and multiple restrictions is what led to the ban on new full auto weapons in the 1980s. Some democrat stuck some provision into a law saying no new full auto guns could be registered - and if you can't get them registered, you can't legally own them.

Even worse is requiring special permission to buy a high cap magazine.

I wouldn't mind people owning tanks and fighter jets - along with laws requiring safe amounts of space and backstop for anyone actually wanting to shoot one.

Some history on the ATF - back in 1989 those under the first George H W Bush banned over three dozen semi-automatic rifles from being imported.*

The ATF did so with no law passed by Congress, no court order. Our rights should not rest on the whims of some bureaucracy.

It's more like the Poetry of Genghis Khan for me. Just because he wrote a poem, it doesn't excuse the mass slaughter, genocide, blood-lust and wild ways of his character.

I'm confused.

*As Lemur has mentioned before, the political climate is far, far different today. The rights-hating cretin politicians back then lied and said assault weapons were favored by gangs and we eventually got the assault weapons ban. Today, only the lone, pathetic politicians really try to ban guns nationally. More of the same lies, but few pay them any mind.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

In regards to restrictions I consider acceptable; I think instant background checks to prevent violent felons and people who have been involuntarily committed to an institution are acceptable.

CR

That's communism.


Why should a felon be stripped of his basic rights? Why is a felon allowed to own a skis to go skiing with, but not a gun to go shooting for sports with? Won't you gun-control crusaders enlighten me, because me I can't tell the difference between these two sets of sports equipment.
Also, if it can not be reasonably established that a violent felon will recommit violent crimes, then don't release him. But if he is released because he is expected to behave, then obviously he must be restored in his basic rights, including the right to buy all the firearms he wishes.


As for your mean-spirited suggestion to strip people with mental problems of their basic rights - this belongs to the Soviet Union. Just because a person is depressed does not mean he loses the right to vote, to drive a car, to play sports. Why should he lose the right to buy the sporting equipment of his choice? Have you seen what damage you can do with a baseball bat?


Why do you support the government to take away the most fundamental freedom of these vulnerable groups: the right to defend themselves?

[HoreTore]

Society should not be structured to suit the lowest common denominator.

Actually PJ, with you being a fan of meritocracy, basing society on the least common denominator would probably be something you favour.

The lowest common denimonator will always be equal to or higher than the highest number. So, basing society on the lowest common denominator means basing society around the "normal" and "succesful"



This has been your daily message from The Math Crusade.
Onwards men; to factorization!!