The new target for gun bans: All semiautomatic weapons?

[beevul]

The new target for gun bans: All semiautomatic weapons?

By Eugene Volokh January 8

Back in the 1970s, talk was of banning “Saturday Night Specials” — cheap, generally low-caliber handguns that were supposedly favored by criminals. Actually, criminals, like other people, preferred better, more powerful guns. And to the extent the bans pushed criminals away from the cheap, low-caliber guns and to slightly more expensive, high-caliber substitutes, they might have increased gun deaths, precisely because the high-caliber substitutes were deadlier. (A gun is a criminal’s tool of the trade; a few would-be gun criminals might be put off by having to pay some more for a gun, but many others would pay the extra money if they had to.)

Then talk shifted to so-called “assault weapons” — particular kinds of semiautomatic weapons — partly because these too were seen as unusual and not generally owned by law-abiding people. Quite a few states and cities have indeed banned sales of such weapons, as did the federal government (for newly manufactured) weapons from 1994 to 2004. Of course, especially now, such “assault weapons” are actually pretty common, but bans on them are still being proposed.

And of course now things have moved on: Now we’re hearing calls for bans on sale or home possession of semiautomatic weapons generally. Consider, for instance, Thomas Friedman’s column in the New York Times this week; Damon Linker’s article for The Week this week, though apparently limited to semiautomatic rifles; the Media Matters article hopefully noting a poll of Latinos that showed support for a ban on “semi-automatic and assault weapons” (the polling organization itself characterized the position as “ban semi-automatic weapons”).

These proposals aren’t entirely new; President Obama, when he was a candidate for the Illinois legislature in 1998, said he’d support a ban on semiautomatic weapons. But I’ve been hearing them more and more often — even though semiautomatic guns likely represent close to half of the guns out there in the country. These aren’t calls for restricting supposedly narrow categories of guns that are allegedly used predominantly by criminals. These are calls for banning the sorts of guns that tens of millions of law-abiding Americans have in their homes.

Now if people think that we’d be safer with a ban on semiautomatic weapons, they should of course feel free to argue in favor of such a ban. But, as I suggested in this post earlier today, it’s hard to view gun rights supporters as “paranoid” for worrying that supposedly modest restrictions will lead to broad gun bans, when they see how supposedly narrower past restrictions are indeed being followed by calls for much broader gun bans today.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/08/the-new-target-for-gun-bans-all-semiautomatic-weapons/

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

Discuss.

I agree. The 'gun owners are paranoid' argument, just doesn't fly when you:

A. Take anti-gunners at their word, on what they wish to ban

B. Pay attention to legislative history, how the anti-gun crowd always wants something more legislatively. Nothing is ever 'enough' for them.

C. Note the dishonesty invoked in their methodology. It might be mentioned in this thread by someone, that the pro-gun side has engaged in some dishonesty of their own. While this is true to a relatively very small extent when compared with well known anti-gun doctrine, theres one HUGE difference. Anti-gun dishonesty is aimed toward reducing our rights, while any dishonesty on the part of the pro-gun side is aimed toward keeping intact the rights we still have, the extent to which we still have them, and the recognition that keeping and bearing (owning and carrying a gun) are rights not priveleges.

[NaturalHigh]

1. There is no doubt in my mind that most of the anti-gun crowd wants a ban.

How often do we read posters on here hoping for a ban and confiscation?

[SecularMotion]

2. Eugene Volokh

The Volokh Conspiracy is a blog, founded in 2002, covering legal and political issues from an ideological orientation it describes as "generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Volokh_Conspiracy

[beevul]

3. That doesn't mean hes wrong.

It just means that you have nothing else to nitpick about the substance of the OP. If you could, you would.

Tell me more about how it matters, after the links to fox your side of the debate uses on a situational basis, and why this is any different.

[sarisataka]

4. Didn't you recently use the Daily Caller as a source?

The Daily Caller is a politically conservative news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

Why yes, you did-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172185498

[Duckhunter935]

8. the hypocrisy is very strong in some

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. *crickets*

[Duckhunter935]

13. how did I guess

He would disappear when confronted

[virginia mountainman]

14. Also World net daily....

He also has been know to post from "World net daily".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178816

From Wiki:

WND (WorldNetDaily) is a politically conservative American web site.[2] It was founded in May 1997 by Joseph Farah with the stated intent of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power".[3] WND has been active in promoting a number of conspiracy theories, including Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.

[SecularMotion]

15. Are you disputing this fact?

“The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural and relatively less educated voters,” he continues. “This demographic is currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane. While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans is generally well known, less often recognized is what this means for gun legislation.”

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/professor-left-has-secret-weapon-to-kill-gun-rights/#1H4Z7W4fgjGsx3cy.99

[Puha Ekapi]

16. Why do you dislike rural people?

[Duckhunter935]

17. Moving the goalposts

You were complaining about the source. You were shown the hypocrisy of that and have no response.

[NaturalHigh]

18. Are you disputing the fact that you used WND as a source?

[gejohnston]

5. there are centrist Democrats

the ToS only says Democrat. In fact, there are libertarian Democrats. The Democratic Party is a party, not an ideology. In our two party system, each one has several factions.

BTW, shall we discuss your OPs with links to the Daily Caller?

[SecularMotion]

6. I posted this link to show how Republicans in Congress

tie up discussions of gun legislation in "constitutional arguments", but all the replies from pro-gun liberals supported the Republicans.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172185498

Why is that?

Are they really Republicans or just liberals with conservative views on gun control?

[DonP]

7. Those pesky "constitutional arguments" getting in your way again?

How rude of them to point out the law of the land.

They should all just roll over and bow to your superior intellect and moral position.

A lot of sore losers on the gun control side and we hope to keep it that way as the violent crime rate continues to fall.

[gejohnston]

10. No, they are principled Americans care about

the Constitution and all of the BoR and don't buy into the ends justify the means extremism. That is something that should be bi partisan. When anyone one says "never mind what the Constitution says" should be called out by both parties, including their own party, and punished by their constituents.

[Puha Ekapi]

12. Why are you against freedom?

After all, freedom loving liberals respect the Bill of Rights, but many of the controllers seem to find it an obstacle. Why is that?

[Puha Ekapi]

11. Ahem...

...that's called "poisoning the well", which is a logical fallacy. Therefore, anyone interested in a rational discussion can reasonably disregard your post. Thanks for trying, though.

[Eleanors38]

19. Controllers should read this OP, as the real intent (bans) is made clear.