Why is the right to skeet shoot with a military weapon in the same breath as forums for free speech? The splash damage of these two efforts isn’t remotely comparable.
What is a non-military weapon? If you want to have a meaningful discussion, please identify the types of guns you have a problem with, and why, and how you differentiate them from guns you don't have [as much of] a problem with, and how you intend to avoid running afowl (sorry I couldn't resist) of the 2nd amendment.
You think the splash damage of free speech isn't significant? It's less immediate, but more significant. How do you think we got into modern wars like Iraq and Syria if not for media-supported propaganda, i.e. speech?
I don’t think knowledge of particular gun types is relevant to my argument- I am saying that the side effects of banning a particular gun are smaller and far less profound than making the operators of internet platforms responsible for the speech of all users on their platform.
I agree with you that speech is more important! That’s why I am saying the side effects, the splash damage if you will, in limiting platforms where ordinary people can spread information because they might be used for sex trafficking, is not remotely comparable to banning a model of gun because it might be used to shoot a lot of people quickly.
The intended effects and effectiveness of the efforts aside, I think the potential for unintended side effects in FOSTA is of a completely different magnitude and nature.
You don't know what the side effects are because you don't know how an assault rifle is defined (it depends on which legislation you're talking about, there's no standard definition), and without proposing specific things to be banned, your proposal is just virtue signalling "I don't like assault weapons [even though I don't know what they are or how they're distinguished from handguns]."
Depending on the proposal, a ban on assault rifles is likely either:
- An ineffective nothingburger, targeting features that don't matter for lethality, that can easily be removed or changed, or features that can be built or re-added in a weekend in a garage (which only affects people who shoot recreationally, and not someone planning a shooting for weeks or months like mass shooters tend to do).
- A ban on most semi-auto guns including the vast majority of handguns people rely on for every day carry and self defense.
If you want to try to have an effective ban without nuking handguns too, you have to be fairly knowledgeable about guns and machining and very specific about what you're proposing, and there are likely still holes big enough to drive a falcon nine through.
And then, if you come up with such a proposal that actually might work, you have to run the gauntlet of:
1. It's unconstitutional.
2. Semi-auto long guns are actually better for self defense than handguns, the main reasons people use handguns are that long guns are less mobile/concealable and louder.
3. What exactly are you going to do about the tens of millions of banned guns and maybe hundreds of millions of banned magazines for those guns? Confiscation? Do you want a civil war? No confiscation? Then nefarious people will have no trouble getting them on the black market.
(chimeracoder's reply is completely right, but I didn't want to take the detour of getting into the technical definition of assault rifle when it makes no difference in this discussion.)
> You don't know what the side effects are because you don't know how an assault rifle is defined (it depends on which legislation you're talking about, there's no standard definition)
To clarify:
"Assault rifle" is well-defined with a standard definition. Assault rifles have been illegal for non-military, non-LEO use for decades (with a grandfather clause for rifles purchased before a certain date - these are incredibly expensive due to their rarity and belong mainly to collectors).
"Assault weapon" is completely undefined with no common consensus around what it refers to, and plenty of inconsistent or self-contradictory definitions in use.
I would argue that none of the potential harms you talked about are either realistic or of the same magnitude of closing the online dating industry to new entrants, forcing discussion forms of all sizes to adopt automated censorship programs to defend their owners against a credible threat of jail time if anyone is found posting anything about trafficking on the platform, and a plethora of other side effects better described in the original article above.
I think you’re right when you say the technical detail of the assault rifle definition is irrelevant. Just because I don’t know as much about gun types as you does not mean that I can’t see that banning a particular type of firearm will not lead to civil war, but weakening 230 will lead to the centralization of censorship of the internet.
Why is the right to communicate with a military grade global network in the same breath as the freedom to speak and associate in the town common? The splash damage of hate speech amplified by the power of modern communication platforms isn’t remotely comparable. Do you think the founders envisioned people being able to communicate instantly and with millions of people across the country?!
Freedom of speech should clearly only apply to however far your voice can carry unassisted by technology. Anything else is clearly too dangerous to allow the common citizenry to wield.
</s>
The whole point of freedom of speech and right to bear arms is a citizenry which can literally stand up to its own government. I can’t understand in this day and age, with country after country ravaged by war, people oppressed, tortured, detained without due process, jailed for wrongthink, etc. how I’m supposed to take anyone seriously that think I should actually give up my natural rights as a law abiding citizen.
About 90% of gun deaths in the US are by hand guns. If you seriously wanted to reduce gun violence, banning hand guns seems like the obvious place to start.
Handguns are cheaper, easier to conceal, and easier to shoot yourself with.
Banning rifles to prevent gun deaths is a bit like banning oversized rear spoilers on cars to prevent car deaths. Sure cars with spoilers look faster and there is an association with street racing, but most vehicular deaths do not involve one.
Please enlighten me. What is the splash damage for not being to own an assault rifle vs the splash damage of making platforms responsible for their users speech (even if they don’t know it’s happening)?
I think your statement in the form of a question boils down to "banning high powered weapons affects less people than banning sites with personals". Perhaps youre right in that angle but you originally said "Why is the right to skeet shoot with a military weapon in the same breath as forums for free speech?" and from the standpoint of eroding citizen rights and privacy to government in the name of safety they are _absolutely_ the same.
Just bringing some information about "assault rifles"
Assault rifles, by military definition, have selective fire.
None of my AR-15 rifles, or semi automatic 10/22 have that function.
I cannot have assault rifles without a manufacturer license as a civilian.
"Military grade" weapons are garbage, my guns are far superior than military grade in quality and reliability.
