Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

1
So, I decided to join the facebook gun control subgroup of Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) a few days ago to try to add to the debate. Good-hearted people trying to solve a problem, but shackled to gun control movement orthodoxy about the AWB and with little subject information outside of the law - and many haven't really looked at gun laws. Still, the reason I chose to debate there is that lawyers are usually pretty good at recognizing bad arguments and abandoning them, and I'm hoping that good arguments could change some minds. If the subgroup (about two hundred people) recommends to the greater L4GG group that AWBs are a waste, that would be around 120,000 legal professionals who'd likely see the subgroup's recommendation and have to at least take it seriously. It seems like a good possible return on time with some influential people (some who may want to become judges soon), with that huge IF I can change some minds. I dunno if anyone else is in the main L4GG group or subgroup (it's "secret" and unlisted), but I think I can invite people in case someone is really interested. The main group threads can be quite insufferable sometimes, though.

I'm upsetting some applecarts, at least - pretty much the only gun-familiar person and the only gun rights advocate in the subgroup, and polite as possible. I've had perhaps a little success arguing against the effectiveness of bans by comparing them to Prohibition all over again, totally unenforceable and ineffective, and noting that even with perfect enforcement of a confiscation scheme, guns are at least as easy to make as booze with cheap materials and tools: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67PYuGQM9Fg (I feel like I saw this argument on a thread somewhere and just lifted it wholesale, but I like it)

Does anyone have any debate tips, especially if you've had success with mostly-urban listeners that start with little information but are persuadable? I'm kinda trying to make the argument that ban-centered (or just plain bad) gun policy cripples liberals' ability to compete in rural areas, but not sure if I can really tie up that argument as nicely as I'd like. Or if you think my arguments are bad, please poke some holes and jeer at me! That's mainly what I'm looking for. Not the jeers, the corrections!

And if this is in the wrong thread and needs moving, my bad! :newhere:
Morale was deteriorating and it was all Yossarian's fault. The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

2
Sorry but in my experience lawyers are really good at recognizing bad arguments then resorting to ad hominems so be wary of being the messenger.

But to address your question, when convincing lawyers draw evidence from sources as pertinent and as close to their home as possible to most clearly supporting your argument. So a video about a Philippine hack-shop producing guns may be interesting background to scare someone who doesn't know guns, it does little for Americans interested in legislation protecting Americans. (BTW, that reporter is a hack, or at least the story is filled with BS by a journalist who don't know guns. Any gun guy would be able to tell the two quality 1911's he was holding at the end didn't come from a guy who claims to have built it (and revolvers) out of a sheet of recycled ship. Don't use this video for any argument unless you want to lose all credibility with them.)

The following is an excellent video from a reputable source which explains the futility of AWB simply because "Assault Weapon" is a term based in politics, not based in fact:
https://youtu.be/yATeti5GmI8


So again, narrow the focus of your arguments. Employ pertinent supporting facts which are as close to home as possible. And do not get dragged into defending that which the other side has the burden of proof, such as defining Assault Weapon, and how a law with unclear boundaries or definitions could reasonably be enforced?

You also need to get in touch with Lara. She's our LGC rep and a practicing attorney in CA. She may be interested in jumping on what you are involved with if she has time.
Last edited by Bisbee on Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

3
Honestly, if debating with lawyers, I'd take a hard look at the Heller case, the required level of review (right term? I'm not a lawyer) of infringement on firearms and then discuss just how little ARs are used in all murders (less than 300 per year--this number includes all rifles). Compare that to the ~10,000 or so firearm homicides per year. Banning ARs won't significantly reduce that 300 and the burden on the 75 million lawful gun owners in the country needs to be considered in that light. Does that infringement meet the bar?

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

4
Another approach is the problem defining in words what exactly an "assault" weapon is so that a law can be written. You basically can't describe an AR-15 without the physical description including everyone's 10/22 bunny gun.

Look up the definition of a pistol grip. The webbing of the hand has to be behind the trigger and below the pivot point of the trigger. Easily gotten around by placing the webbing to the side.

And does having the webbing above the trigger (as a shotgun) really matter? Is the angle of the wrist that is changed between the shotgun and a pistol grip shotgun what turns everyone into mass murderers? I think the Ruger mini14 was allowed because of this. Does the mini14 differ from an AR-15 in effectiveness? I don't think so.

You can't base it on caliber or rate of fire or basically any other specific feature. Look at the recent ban proposal, and it includes manufacturer models.

The feature they always seem to include is the barrel shroud. It's no different than a stock other than it provides protection for the gas tube. Protect that some other way and keep the stock on the bottom. I'm not that familiar with piston operated, but I would think something could be made with wood furniture that would be impossible to describe without any difference than a 10/22 unless you consider rimfire vs center fire. Which I believe was about the only thing they come up with. So what makes the distinction between an AR-15 and a semi auto hunting rifle?

Show them that without listing specific manufacturers models, they can't come up with a written description that can't be gotten around.

Financers do that all the time. Can you say loan traunch?

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

5
To further NoEyeDeer's line, the M1a carbine, sks and Garand have been exempted and are actually "weapons of war" in that they have all been used in war. Why are they exempt? Wood stocks? Not "tacticool" looking? Historical relevance? I dunno. But they are all equally, if not more, deadly than the AR in 5.56. Same with the mini 14, though not used by the military, just paramilitary police forces and the A Team.

This all leads me to belive two things. 1) the media has created a term "assault rifle" out of the AR and equated it to a military weapon (false comparison) and 2) the legislature has no fuckin clue what they are doing. Ignorance is no excuse so I've begun to suspect alterior motives.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

7
eelj wrote: Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:46 am The media and politicians use the term "assault rifle" because thats the way the gun manufacturers originally marketed them. You can blame Heckler&Koch for that.
In Finland the term "rynnäkkökivääri" which means assault rifle was used with the Valmet RK-62. How terms like that got associated with a civilian weapon like the AR can only be attributed to willful misdirection. Assault weapon is just further fabrication for emotional effect. As for arguing with lawyer, don't. If you have to ask a lawyer or get one.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

8
I haven't read it in years, but I have a book on my shelves that might help in formulating arguments. it is "Restricting Handguns, The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out." Don B. Kates 1979. As I say, I haven't read it in years, but the view is from a liberal skeptic to gun control so, even though it is dated, it could be useful.

As far as the term "assault weapon" it was coined in the late 1980's by gun control advocates and deliberately made to be misleading. Unfortunately, I don't recall the source for that to point you to it. I think Pete Shields might have termed it if you try to research the term.

Another source is James Alan Fox. He is a liberal pro-gun control professor. He has studied mass shootings extensively. He isn't a great source for anti-gun control arguments, but he does have good facts and background to support your arguments. He used to have a blog, but doesn't seem to write it anymore. The archived posts and published editorials are here, https://web.northeastern.edu/jfox/blogs.html .

One fact in most mass shootings prior to this point has been that most were committed with handguns. Now, it seems AR-15's are being used more. Or is it the media creating that perception. It is hard to separate fact from perception. I suspect that the media attention given to the rifle might be driving its use in shootings. We know that shooters study other shooters and try to exceed the "body count" or "score" of others. It is like a really sick game. Therefore, media attention to the rifle might make it more desirable. If you can find information to support that it might be a useful to your argument.

Good luck.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

9
Lawyers aren't necessarily special in their thinking. Are they contract lawyers, estate planners, criminal lawyers, businessmen that have law degrees, politicians?

First you have to assume they are just people with specialized education. Their opinion on a matter may have no legal backing, leaving them searching wildly through the past for precedence.

Lawyers take a client and represent them using law in the legal system. Not the justice system. They can be totally wrong, representing a terrible client who's also totally wrong, and win in a court of law. Their precedence may be bad law and they're wrong, but since their client is "gun control" they'll do everything in their power to win; even if wrong.

It's simple to see it in action throughout even our short time as a country. Legal cases involving segregation and slavery and women voting and etc., etc. Where a lawyer used law and his persuasive abilities to do wrong and create wrong case law and precedence. All it takes to do wrong is the backing of a majority of the public (and the subset lawyers, judges, and politicians). It's the main reason constitutional rights are not meant to be put up for a public vote. Eventually, people come to understand they were wrong, but normally it's well after the idiot lawyers are dead and their legal precedence overturned.

My thought is, they'll attempt to appeal to authority immediately, bog down in case law minutia, try to convince the court of public opinion they are correct, and at the same time they are probably way less qualified on the subject then some random person who spends their time working for rights and justice. Even if they end up winning, they started out on the side of wrong and simply used every legal trick in the book to win. Eventually when justice comes, they're confused because they thought win=right. The worst lawyers do this while attempting to drag everything out as long as possible because they bill by the hour.
Brian

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

10
As far as the term "assault weapon" it was coined in the late 1980's by gun control advocates and deliberately made to be misleading. Unfortunately, I don't recall the source for that to point you to it. I think Pete Shields might have termed it if you try to research the term.
back in the late 70s and early 80s the anti activity was centered on handguns only. The firearms manufacturers were trying to find a market for certain markets and H&K led the way with full page ads directed at survivalists, they featured hollywood actors and models all decked out in LRRP regalia complete with dew rags on their heads carrying their " semi automatic civilian legal military assault weapon, the HK91" . Nobody wanted them. Then the antis started on rifles when they coudn't get anywhere with handguns and everybody wanted them. Do a google search, you can even find the old H&K ads.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

11
eelj wrote: Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:46 am The media and politicians use the term "assault rifle" because thats the way the gun manufacturers originally marketed them. You can blame Heckler&Koch for that.
I recall H&K using that term specifically in ads, but elsewhere a different term, "assault weapon," was used. As we know, that's the nonsense term popularized by Josh Sugarmann to the extent it made its way into laws in ban states. Thus it is equally unfortunate and a huge win for gun prohibitionists.

I seriously doubt the media is combing through old magazines looking for a get-out-of-jail-free card for using assault rifle improperly, though. They were taught this elsewhere. Years ago--and this would be a few years after Bloomberg and his ilk had been misusing the term widely and using it interchangeably with their favored term "assault weapon"--Merriam-Webster appended their mostly-correct definition of assault rifle with an incorrect one. A couple of people I know in the media refer specifically to that. Needless to say, neither are fans of firearm possession by those not in the military or on police forces. Also, the influence of events such as the Everytown-funded "gun violence" media workshop in which gun prohibition organizations taught members of the media how to frame gun-related articles should not be discounted.

Regarding widespread misuse of the term assault rifle, knowing _why_ it is misused I am loath to let it go unchallenged no matter how religiously the gun prohibition lobby and their supporters in the media adhere to it. The meanings of words matter. Given the extensive misuse of the term assault rifle in the past few weeks, accurate guides help. As of this moment Wikipedia covers it pretty well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
This image is also accurate and probably more easily digested by the uninitiated.
Image



Regarding the OP, what is the point of debating an AWB with lawyers? What is to be achieved given no minds will be changed?

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

12
inomaha wrote: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:05 am Lawyers aren't necessarily special in their thinking. Are they contract lawyers, estate planners, criminal lawyers, businessmen that have law degrees, politicians?

First you have to assume they are just people with specialized education. Their opinion on a matter may have no legal backing, leaving them searching wildly through the past for precedence.

Lawyers take a client and represent them using law in the legal system. Not the justice system. They can be totally wrong, representing a terrible client who's also totally wrong, and win in a court of law. Their precedence may be bad law and they're wrong, but since their client is "gun control" they'll do everything in their power to win; even if wrong.

It's simple to see it in action throughout even our short time as a country. Legal cases involving segregation and slavery and women voting and etc., etc. Where a lawyer used law and his persuasive abilities to do wrong and create wrong case law and precedence. All it takes to do wrong is the backing of a majority of the public (and the subset lawyers, judges, and politicians). It's the main reason constitutional rights are not meant to be put up for a public vote. Eventually, people come to understand they were wrong, but normally it's well after the idiot lawyers are dead and their legal precedence overturned.

My thought is, they'll attempt to appeal to authority immediately, bog down in case law minutia, try to convince the court of public opinion they are correct, and at the same time they are probably way less qualified on the subject then some random person who spends their time working for rights and justice. Even if they end up winning, they started out on the side of wrong and simply used every legal trick in the book to win. Eventually when justice comes, they're confused because they thought win=right. The worst lawyers do this while attempting to drag everything out as long as possible because they bill by the hour.
Well said!

(Tangentially - this is exactly why I strongly recommend that anyone interested in understanding the 2A go straight back to the source documents and not get tangled up in 19th, 20th, or 21st century court opinions. A decision (opinion!) isn't necessarily correct because it came from the mouth of an attorney, judge, or a trial. The 'Heller' decision is nice, and might be an expedient tool, but it doesn't say anything that the founding documents didn't already say.)

I'll second getting our local attorneys involved, otherwise we risk giving the antis more ammunition rather than changing their minds. (This is something I learned the hard way in the climate change trenches.)

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

13
Thanks for all the great discussion, sources, and approaches to take!

So, despite some unanswered challenges along the lines of burdens imposed, enforcement, etc., the person sort of leading the discussion put together a list of proposals including his pet project, an absurdly worded ban on all scary-looking semiautomatic weapons, kinda, apparently. Friends, I give you the work of 250 lawyers:

#4: "Prohibit the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of new 'semiautomatic assault weapons' (including rifles, pistols, and shotguns), as well as large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines)."

:hmmm:

That's what I've been dealing with. I'm pretty glad they used "magazine" correctly, that's a big step from where the conversation started.

I have a pretty strong response and suggestion prepared, I think. I'll post it next - let me know if it's bonkers and if you think I should hold back, but be advised I'm a little on tilt and kinda want to smash all their terrible ideas at once. I've been away from the business of persuasion too long, and I'm kinda disappointed no one even really engaged me on what they claim is such an important issue.
Morale was deteriorating and it was all Yossarian's fault. The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

14
Perhaps I missed it, but what are the ground rules for the "debate"? Is the statement being debated "Assault weapons should be banned"? Lawyers are specialists in law and how it's applied in a variety of situations. Statistics, research (the 538 data is good), public policy aspects and political ones. I take it it's asynchronous and not live, can you consult others? Good luck!
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

15
Okay, my manifesto-argument is super long, but here's the draft, divided with roman numerals into subtopics to focus any discussion once I post it:
---


I thought I would post my main objection to the initial list separately, since it is long. #4 is a complete nonstarter for a number of reasons, each independently sufficient. I didn't see any real counterarguments to my points about the basic ineffectiveness and infeasibility of a ban on semiautomatic rifles of any kind, let alone the political impossibility of including semiautomatic handguns. We need to take an evidence-based approach, but few suggestions even referred to easily-available UCR data, let alone the CDC data that gives victim demographics. That is precisely how emotionally-driven, politically-alienating, ineffective policy is developed. If we care about reducing gun deaths, we must leave behind our attachments to old, failed policy suggestions. I'll list my objections to #4, and I'd be happy to politely debate any of these; I have some policy suggestions at the end, and how to make them feasible as one part of a comprehensive package, for anyone in a TL;DR mindset who would just like to discuss that. Anyway, for those interested, or those prepared for spirited discussion, buckle up:




(I) An AWB like the one currently proposed by Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), as well as the obsessive focus on large mass shootings and the weapons used in them, are evidence of a significant amount of subconscious racial bias in much of the gun control movement and news coverage of gun violence. Mass shootings committed with semiautomatic rifles of any kind are only a small part (1-2%) of annual gun homicides, but have a hugely disproportionate number of white victims compared to the total victim group. The obsessive multi-decade focus on these large mass shootings, the weapons used in them, and preventing such attacks at the expense of other legislation represents a shameful abandonment of the vast majority of firearm murder victims, a considerable majority of whom are black (well over 50%), and nearly all of whom were killed by handguns (90%), usually in single-murder shootings. These types of killings would be completely unaffected by even a successful total confiscation scheme aimed at all rifles, semiautomatic or otherwise; this remains true for other policy proposals focused on large mass shootings, such as magazine bans. This is based on FBI UCR homicide data, CDC victim demographic data, and a simple analysis of all victims of large mass shootings (9 or more victims killed) from the beginning of 2015 to the killings at Parkland, FL in 2018.


(II) As worded, #4 makes even less sense than the legislatively-fabricated term "assault weapon": among others, you've created "semiautomatic assault pistols" as a category, which is patently absurd: that isn't a thing. If someone thinks it is, I defy them to define it in terms of mechanical function rather than using cosmetic traits or specific models. Essentially, what you've proposed is banning the sale or transfer of all semiautomatic weapons to include the most popular rifles in the US and nearly all handguns - the most common and popular type of firearm overall in the United States. This destroys the economic value of a huge amount of private property, unless you're really fine with permitting a legal market of perhaps 70-100 million grandfathered weapons (which I doubt, for some reason). My quick back-of-envelope math puts the lower end of that destroyed economic value at $40 billion, likely much, much higher, and affecting countless jobs and industries, many of which are dedicated entirely to firearm safety. Consider the political effect, too. My frustration on this issue is not just ignored victims, but also at Democrats winning sufficient seats in Congress in 2018 to work with any reasonable Republicans to protect and repair our government, especially if the Mueller investigation turns up anything damaging and actionable (which seems likely). In terms of how politically toxic a ban of handguns would be, consider that as of today, after EVERYTHING, Trump's approval rating is 40%; a ban on handguns garnered just 28% support in an October 2017 Gallup poll.


(III) The focus on high-capacity magazines is misplaced and, again, reflects both an obsession with major mass shootings (which are rare) and an absence of firearm knowledge that undercuts many gun control proposals. At moderate speed, enunciate the word RELOAD: that's about how long it takes to reload any size magazine for most handguns and rifles, achievable by many novices with perhaps 15 minutes of practice. A magazine ban would make almost no difference in how a major mass shooting plays out, and wouldn't affect the bulk of gun homicides. Not only are the vast majority of gun homicides committed with handguns, many of the most-commonly used handguns can only hold 5-9 rounds due to their small, slim design. The vast majority of gun homicides in the US are single killer-single victim, and these killings usually involve no more than 3 shots fired, often just 1.


(IV) Almost none of these "ban" proposals address the 4th Amendment nightmare of enforcement, perhaps because doing so might acknowledge the incredible burden that would be imposed on tens of millions of totally lawful, responsible citizens whose firearms are neither misused nor stolen. The gun safe industry is large and competitive for a reason: many gun owners are safety extremists, and quite a few will happily chew out a total stranger on a gun range for even a marginal safety violation (I have). The burden imposed on those citizens and their safe exercise of a constitutional right is huge. When compared to the marginal benefits that even total enforcement could achieve, it's no surprise that many reasonable gun owners oppose such clumsy, burdensome laws, commonly written by people who don't value or understand gun rights or the citizens who exercise those rights.


(V) My main objection is really about how much bad policy and stifled debate flows from thinly-veiled raw hostility to any and all lawful, responsible gun owners (which clearly includes me, but also many of my liberal and conservative friends from my hometown, the military, and elsewhere). This hostility takes forms ranging from righteous but ineffective and overly-burdensome bans, all the way to the idea that maybe we just need to annihilate or cripple this troublesome right in lieu of regulating it safely and intelligently. This hostility is exactly why many of the 68 million (probably more) reasonable, non-NRA-member gun owners also think that people are trying to take their guns: many "sensible" gun control ideas like the one I challenge above propose to do exactly that, disarm entirely or by degrees tens of millions of lawful citizens who have done (and will do) nothing wrong with their firearms. Other, more reasonable and effective proposals often contain poison pills that seem designed simply to punish gun ownership while making reasonable gun owners look intransigent - though their intransigence is usually based in a better understanding of the law's oversights, impotence, or absurdly draconian nature.


(VI) This hostility is, I think, why you probably haven't heard of the Czech Republic's quite successful gun laws. That country has reasonable shall-issue licensed ownership of semiautomatic weapons of many kinds, with many safety requirements. Their homicide rate is lower than Australia (considerably), lower than Germany, lower than the UK; gun crime is fairly uncommon. But there are no sweeping bans, and the country's strong gun culture was not extinguished. There are no magic solutions, but the Czech Republic is a great possible template. Again, though, most have never heard of it. If you haven't, ask yourself why. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_ ... h_Republic


(VII) I am not a policy expert and hope I have made no pretensions to that effect - almost all of this is from reading and analyzing simple, reliable data sources or doing Q-sorts of news articles. I graduated from law school almost 6 years ago but failed the bar, struggled to find good long-term work and ended up at a Whole Foods working with many very intelligent, very fine people for the last 3 years - most of us making close to minimum wage. I have studied the issue of gun violence intermittently for years, and very intensively after leaving my job recently (mainly to study this while finding better-paying work). We are talking about a constitutional right that is safely enjoyed and cherished by tens of millions of your fellow citizens, many of whom I'd bet you would like, if you just got to know them. This is about as upset as I can be in a focused discussion: I am an unemployed cheesemonger; you are lawyers. You need to do better than this.


(VIII) ...but I think we can do better together if we set our emotions aside (me too) and focus on effective policies that can be implemented. As one idea, I believe significant numbers of gun owners would be happy, even proud to get a reasonable shall-issue license: stratified by weapon type, with a mental health check/background check prior to issue, appropriate professional training (in self-defense law, general safety, and safe use), storage requirements, a trustworthy family/friend co-signature for the most dangerous fighting weapons, and some reasonable renewal period/mental health paperwork update (I have a few more ideas to make the license more secure and promote widespread adoption, even given the suspicions that many might initially have, though that's a big barrier). Using certain desired but uncommon weapons as a pilot program for the most rigorous, highest level of licensing might work (and get serious industry buy-in).


(IX) BEFORE that can happen, though, reasonable gun owners - myself included - need to have confidence that the licensing system won't be later used to forcibly disarm them in a moment of panic and fear after a mass murder or terrorist attack. That's the big barrier to cooperation, and why I focused on baseless hostility to responsible gun owners above. A heartfelt plea: lay down your hostility and the dream of disarmament - it was a bad, impossible dream, anyway. If that happens, I believe reasonable gun owners (not just loudmouthed me) would be happy to help craft a good, comprehensive proposal, and call up representatives about it - and we are familiar with the useless-but-burdensome parts of current law that can be deleted in a comprehensive bill to incentivize buy-in from many responsible gun owners and their reps. I hope the group will take this under advisement; I know many here are very busy but also passionately committed to finding solutions, so I hope this was worth your time.


---
I haven't been getting enough sleep lately, so it's long, but I think... it makes sense, right? In terms of trying to get a few people to break the fever dream, maybe?
Last edited by Fnords on Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:14 am, edited 3 times in total.
Morale was deteriorating and it was all Yossarian's fault. The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

16
highdesert wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:39 pm Perhaps I missed it, but what are the ground rules for the "debate"? Is the statement being debated "Assault weapons should be banned"? Lawyers are specialists in law and how it's applied in a variety of situations. Statistics, research (the 538 data is good), public policy aspects and political ones. I take it it's asynchronous and not live, can you consult others? Good luck!
The ground rules were kinda just brainstorming ideas, then assembling a list. I found some of the list distasteful. EDIT: also, sorry for length above, jeez. Was a little worked up.
Morale was deteriorating and it was all Yossarian's fault. The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

17
Haven't read your manifesto yet but wanted to say:

As a writer, I am offended by the clutter of their original statement. Instead of using, "(ban) new 'semi-automatic' assault weapons (including rifles, pistols, and shotguns)," they should just say, "(ban) new 'semi-automatic' firearms." But they don't want to say that. So they try to obfuscate with more words, in effect admitting:

We don't want to take your precious guns, alright? But it's necessary only because our fear trumps your pointless little 'freedom' to play with guns. I've never had the slightest desire to play with guns so I've determined it just isn't necessary in modern society. Frankly, it's pointless to discuss this further because you people just don't have the brain cells to appreciate a child's life and so aren't worth talking to. OUR CONCERNS TRUMPS EVERYTHING.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

19
Bisbee wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:18 pm....
The following is an excellent video from a reputable source which explains the futility of AWB simply because "Assault Weapon" is a term based in politics, not based in fact:
https://youtu.be/yATeti5GmI8

...
I fear this argument. As a gun owner, you assume that causing an Anti to fully comprehend that the difference between a "sporting" semi-auto and a semi-auto "assault weapon" (as they use the term) is merely cosmetic, which is a true fact. Once they understand this fact, they are NOT going to think "hmmm ... only cosmetic? we can let it go then." The conclusion an Anti will draw is that their vision of an AWB is flawed in that it doesn't include ALL semi-automatic firearms.

About halfway through that video, the guy takes a wood stocked Mini14, and in about a minute puts on a black plastic folding stock, large capacity magazine, and bipod. What does that prove to the Anti? It proves the entire platform, whether outfitted in wood or a folding stock needs to be banned. Any lawyer worth his salt is immediately going to recognize this argument, and also will realize from a bargaining position, that a credible threat against all semi-autos would be a useful tool in getting a lesser ban enacted.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

20
Fnords wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:55 pm....

#4: "Prohibit the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of new 'semiautomatic assault weapons' (including rifles, pistols, and shotguns), as well as large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines)."

:hmmm:

That's what I've been dealing with. I'm pretty glad they used "magazine" correctly, that's a big step from where the conversation started. ...
If you can do it subtly, try to encourage the use of the word "firearm" in their legislation -- I mean, don't get to it directly but always use firearm rather than "weapon" and perhaps it will work its way into any legislation they happens to pass. I say this because fire is not the only method of propelling a projectile down a barrel and if they were to sucessfully enact a ban, it would be nice to have other means of propulsion available as a workaround. Obviously there is air, but it may be possible eventually to use rail gun technology on a small scale. Perhaps there are chemical reactions that rapidly produce an expansive gas without also producing fire. Even a purely kinetic design where a bullet is accelerated to extremely high speed in a spinning drum before release for stabilization in a barrel would be interesting. So anyway, subtly encouraging the limiting term "firearm" would be worthwhile as a safety valve.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

21
awshoot wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:55 pm I fear this argument. As a gun owner, you assume that causing an Anti to fully comprehend that the difference between a "sporting" semi-auto and a semi-auto "assault weapon" (as they use the term) is merely cosmetic, which is a true fact. Once they understand this fact, they are NOT going to think "hmmm ... only cosmetic? we can let it go then." The conclusion an Anti will draw is that their vision of an AWB is flawed in that it doesn't include ALL semi-automatic firearms.

About halfway through that video, the guy takes a wood stocked Mini14, and in about a minute puts on a black plastic folding stock, large capacity magazine, and bipod. What does that prove to the Anti? It proves the entire platform, whether outfitted in wood or a folding stock needs to be banned. Any lawyer worth his salt is immediately going to recognize this argument, and also will realize from a bargaining position, that a credible threat against all semi-autos would be a useful tool in getting a lesser ban enacted.
That's something I worry about too. I really am surprised that semi-auto bans are more popular already because of this.
106+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

22
Eris wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:14 am
awshoot wrote: Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:55 pm I fear this argument. As a gun owner, you assume that causing an Anti to fully comprehend that the difference between a "sporting" semi-auto and a semi-auto "assault weapon" (as they use the term) is merely cosmetic, which is a true fact. Once they understand this fact, they are NOT going to think "hmmm ... only cosmetic? we can let it go then." The conclusion an Anti will draw is that their vision of an AWB is flawed in that it doesn't include ALL semi-automatic firearms.

About halfway through that video, the guy takes a wood stocked Mini14, and in about a minute puts on a black plastic folding stock, large capacity magazine, and bipod. What does that prove to the Anti? It proves the entire platform, whether outfitted in wood or a folding stock needs to be banned. Any lawyer worth his salt is immediately going to recognize this argument, and also will realize from a bargaining position, that a credible threat against all semi-autos would be a useful tool in getting a lesser ban enacted.
That's something I worry about too. I really am surprised that semi-auto bans are more popular already because of this.
But that is what they should be asking for, instead of arguing over what a pistol grip, flash hider, or military style is. That also clarifies the 100 million or so firearms they will have to pick up with a simple description.

Cut to the chase instead of this thousand cuts crap.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

23
BKinzey wrote: Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:42 pm ....
But that is what they should be asking for, instead of arguing over what a pistol grip, flash hider, or military style is. That also clarifies the 100 million or so firearms they will have to pick up with a simple description.

Cut to the chase instead of this thousand cuts crap.
I don't want to see a generalized semi-auto ban. I don't think we should get into a battle where we don't know the outcome -- everyone thinks they'll win going in, but in the end, someone always loses.

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

24
Well, that is the inevitable show-down as I see this. Unless the Pro-Gun folks like us are able to come up with a solution that does not eliminate gun ownership, the Anti-s are going to go for semi-auto ban which will lead to a reconsideration of the 2A. Looking back, it seems we have been on borrowed time.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: Any advice for debating AWB with lawyers?

25
Do we even have a solid foundadtional argument against a semi-automatic ban?

All I'm reading is weak.
* Semi-autos are popular so don't
* There's a lot of them, it will be costly, so don't.
* But most people who own them don't turn into killers, so don't.
* It's racist, so don't.
* But the constitution...
* But statistics.
* But Zokovia doesn't ban them and they're fine (Until Ultron blew it up) so don't.
* But you're overreacting emotionally so don't.

I think we need to stop and work on some fundamental argument establishing the necessity semi-automatic firearms and interchangeable magazines in a healthy, enduring, secure society. I believe such an argument exists.

In before: "But my personal political philosophy says we can only have negative rights -- therefore nobody has to prove "need" of anything I do."

Antis believe you don't need weapons to defend yourself -- it's the duty of the state to protect the people, who are stripped of their right to self defense, which they don't need because the state is benevolent and all powerful.

You can't win an argument if you don't understand your opponent.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests