Oh the horror!

Tell us more about the sane (“common sense”?) gun laws!

I love these.

I'd love to limit the semi-auto rifles like the infamous AR-15. Useless for hunting, useless for self-defense. In exchange for country-wide reciprocity for concealed carry and firearm transportation.

> Useless for hunting, useless for self-defense.

I'm not a 1A guy, I think that for instance people with a history of domestic violence shouldn't be armed (that is what I would cite as "common sense"), but this statement really damages your credibility. Of course semiautomatic rifles are useful for both hunting and for self defense. They are effective weapons. That's the problem.

> I'm not a 1A guy, I think that for inference people with a history of domestic violence shouldn't be armed

Whut? How the fuck did you make that jump?

AR-15 rifles are useless for hunting. They are too small to reliably kill large game (deer) and too large for small game (rabbits). Sure, they're fine for coyotes, but if you're buying an AR-15 to hunt coyotes, then you should just stop.

AR-15s are also useless for self-defense. They are too bulky for indoor use, and the bullets can penetrate multiple walls. A regular semi-auto handgun is far superior if you're looking to protect yourself against domestic violence.

The domestic violence thing was about a potential gun regulation, not a scenario. People with domestic violence convictions are overrepresented among murderers and mass shooters. So it would make sense to prevent them from obtaining guns.

It's useless for hunting, but you identify circumstances it's useful in. You say it's useless for self defense because it's bulky, I've heard a hundred people say it's ideal because it's easier to be proficient with a rifle than with a pistol.

Say whatever you want, but when you make absolute statements like that, it damages your credibility. That's my feedback for you.

I think you may have very differing views of what "self-defense" situations you and the other poster are talking about.

Could you describe a specific scenario one of those hundred people might be imagining?

I don't really care to have an in depth discussion of self defense scenarios because I don't think that helps us understand common sense gun regulation any better. I'm sure you can find people making that argument if you are curious. My point is not that the AR-15 is an appropriate self defense weapon but that there are better arguments you could have made, and that the one you did make lost someone who is already sympathetic to your position.

You're a bot, likely.

I guess what I'm saying doesn't compute.

I did find someone making that argument, you. I don't think asking for one example out of a hundred is asking for an in depth discussion, but if you claim this is too much for you then I won't push the issue.

It's just not what I'm talking about it the point I'm trying to make. I wasn't making that argument.

"it's ideal because it's easier to be proficient with a rifle than with a pistol"

So a shotgun then?

I could cut-n-paste a bunch of them and you could copy back all the arguments against them, if you want to do that.

Or post a link to a tiresome comment sections where it's been done countless times.

But until 2A is amended there's nothing we can do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...

For record:

That’s why I love the conversations.

You act like Trump’s policies don’t have broad support with a majority of voters.

Polls can be capricious, but Trump's recent numbers with some groups have seen big drops.

> science based policy making

One of my favorite trivia questions is: how long has it been since Congress has had staff scientists?

Well, I'd do a guess and say at least since the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment got deep-sixed back in the 95. Either that or they never had them.

I have very little faith that scotus will have any consistency in their decisions going forward - they seem to be nakedly political, and backing trump. If the elections swing the other direction (despite their aid in gerrymandering), expect them to cry about the power of the presidency and start rolling it back as fast as they can push decisions through the shadow docket.

> The pendulum swings. It always does. And all the powers SCOTUS gave the executive branch will eventually be in the hands of the Loyal Opposition.

That sounds reinsuring, but it is completely false. The idea that the pendulum swings is just regression to the mean: sure, after a terrible president, the next one is likely to be less terrible. But there is nothing that implies that after a far-right regime will come a far-left one. In fact, if you look at History in various countries around the world, this seems very unlikely.

> If it swings as far back you might even see universal health care, sane gun laws, fair wages, campaign finance reform, reproductive freedom, science based policy making, reigning in billionaires, etc.

Don’t count on it. In all likelihood it will regress to the centre. The American culture hasn’t changed that much and American leftists did not suddenly become competent at getting popular support.

> But there is nothing that implies that after a far-right regime will come a far-left one. In fact, if you look at History in various countries around the world, this seems very unlikely.

Looking at the history of left wing movements in countries post-WWII, can you think of a reason why they wouldn't be successful and far-right ones would? The Cold War may have been a factor.

> Don’t count on it. In all likelihood it will regress to the centre.

The center doesn't exist anymore. The right-wing has labeled the US Democratic Party as extreme left. There should be a term for 'forcing your opposition to materialize because you are unable to distinguish between propaganda and reality'.

> Looking at the history of left wing movements in countries post-WWII, can you think of a reason why they wouldn't be successful and far-right ones would?

In western democracies, I can think of a couple. For example, the wave of left-wing intellectualism that was prevalent up until the 1980s got somewhat lost and lost contact with the lower classes, which left an opening for far-right populists.

> The center doesn't exist anymore. The right-wing has labeled the US Democratic Party as extreme left.

You’re right. In that frame of reference, it might indeed regress to the far left, but that would still be slightly to the left of Bill Clinton. The US don’t strike me as having a particularly strong left-wing culture and I don’t see it appearing any time soon.

> There should be a term for 'forcing your opposition to materialize because you are unable to distinguish between propaganda and reality'.

I don’t think the word exist, but the concept proved very useful to a lot of dictators.

> And all the powers SCOTUS gave the executive branch will eventually be in the hands of the Loyal Opposition.

They will find excuses to reverse. There will be some technicality, made up historical precense or some actually untrue fact about the world that wil totally make the situation different.

Conservative heretage foundation group has outcome in mind ... and "opposition" is not their preffered outcome.