Metro Jacksonville

I thought this might be a good way to look at the nuance of peoples gun positions.

Curious what constitutes "Military Style"?

I used the term "Military Style" because that was phrasing Ronald Reagan used when he asked congress to ban them. A quick definition that is fine with me for the purposes of my list is.

Military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) is a term in New Zealand firearms law. The category was introduced after the 1990 Aramoana massacre and is defined as any "self-loading" (i.e. semi-automatic) firearm, other than pistol, with any of the following features:[1]

Folding or telescopic butt
Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges (for .22 rimfire)
Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges (for other than a .22 rimfire)
Bayonet lug
Pistol grip as defined by regulation
Flash suppresser

The only thing that gives a semi auto "military style" rifle an advantage over any other semi automatic rifle is the capability to accept detachable magazines of basically any capacity (some sporting rifles also fall in here).  A pistol grip, bayonet lug, collapsing stock, and the other features that were originally banned are just cosmetics.  If people want to focus on banning something that will actually make a difference it should be the magazine capacity and function.  Some states like California already has laws governing such.

I'd like to vote for "NONE OF THE ABOVE" in that I would like to see an option for "whatever the police have" since that's really the reason we have the 2nd amendment.

Guns Helped Secure the Freedom and Civil Rights of Black Americans:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/14/reminder-guns-helped-secure-the-freedom

Quote from: coredumped on June 15, 2016, 04:45:19 PM
I would like to see an option for "whatever the police have" since that's really the reason we have the 2nd amendment.

I guess I missed that clause in the Second Amendment.

The second amendment was written to preserve local malitias (mainly to guard against slave uprisings) and the Supreme Court afirmed that those rights also extend to individuals. 

Those rights for individuals do not include freedom to battle the police.

Quote from: JeffreyS on June 15, 2016, 05:18:25 PM
The second amendment was written to preserve local malitias (mainly to guard against slave uprisings) and the Supreme Court afirmed that those rights also extend to individuals. 

Those rights for individuals do not include freedom to battle the police.

Even if you interpret coredumped's comment to mean "guard against tyranny" (or similar), I hardly believe that is "the real reason we have the second amendment".

It might be one reason, but it's not the reason and it's not the real reason.

I really don't like wading into the waters of 'gun control' because everyone that I know who carry are 'responsible' owners.  Most have concealed carry permits and I'm not aware of any instance that any of them had to use their gun in self-defense.  So IMO, it's like any other item people carry in case of emergency and it's a 'better to have and not need' type of issue.

That said, I grew up around guns:  Rifles, shotguns, pistols and even a musket.  I also grew up in a rural area in SC similar to Hilliard, FL.  There were approximately 20 and they stayed in a case, along with the ammo and cleaning kits.  They weren't touched by anyone in the house unless we had permission to go shoot.  That was one of those rules that my brothers and I never tried to bend, and I can't explain why we didn't test that one out any better than I can explain why there were so many rules that we couldn't care less about following.   

So with that nugget of NRW history, I oppose any ban on firearms.  The majority of the firearm deaths in the USA are handguns, and a good portion of those deaths are suicides  I know they don't have the media appeal of a fierce looking AR-15 decked out in all it's glory, but that's a media-made issue and not a real-life issue.  As it's been mentioned earlier in the thread and in many, many other places, the differences between what's labeled as an assault rifle and your stereo-typical gran-daddy's hunting rifle are mostly cosmetic. 

I do believe that a more stringent process for acquiring guns would be a good first step, and that step would need to be enforced at all levels of purchasing, whether it be owner to owner, owner to dealer or dealer to owner. 

A solid second-step would be figuring out a way to start eliminating all of the illegal guns that are already on the street.  I don't even have an idea on how to encourage people (read:  criminals if the guns were gotten illegally) to turn them in, but that's an issue all and of itself. 

Thirdly, and this goes against some of my principles on the matter in general, would be to dis-allow ownership of guns with removable clips and to figure out some sort of cap to prevent some ingenious engineering to fit more rounds somewhere inside of the gun.  Most every firearm has an internal area to store rounds ranging from 3/4-14.  Most all of them have removable clips for easy loading, but those can be replaced with high-capacity clips with ZERO modification to the weapon.  If you eliminated that aspect, then it wouldn't be impossible to reconfigure the weapon, but it wouldn't be as easy.

Edit:  On my 'removable clip' comment, I do realize that would require manufacturers to completely change their production methods - basically re-engineering 99% of what they sell.  Because aside from revolvers and shotguns, most every gun I've used has a clip that can be removed and replaced with a loaded one. 

I think you should not be too disgruntled to register your guns, be licensed, and submit to a mental evaluation if asked.