Question for folks who want to ban civilian use of semi-auto firearms:

I do agree that freedom in a democracy should mean equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome, and if someone makes a whole lot more money than so be it. It is undisputed that people with means can buy more and have more than people who don’t. The fact that Michael Bloomberg owns multiple houses in multiple states—while I do not—does not bother me. He earned the money to buy these things and I do not begrudge him for it.

But I believe your argument misses the point.

The key here is the inequality in outcomes—whether financial or otherwise—should not be driven by the government actively favoring one group over another.

Assume for a moment the government proposed banning firearm possession by African American males. Assume the government would justify the ban by citing statistics which (either legitimately or through subtle manipulation) show African American males are statistically more likely to use a firearm in a homicide and are also more likely to be a victim of a homicide with a firearm—and thereby claim the measure is intended to save lives.

No one would accept this ban. Not only does it deny a fundamental constitutional right, but its overtly racial application would violate the equal protection clause. Regardless of the beneficent motive, it would clearly be the government picking the winners and the losers based upon race.

Now assume the government decides to make the ban race-neutral, and the ban is changed to include everyone except those the government feels it can trust—such as your proposal to allow possession by professional security forces available for hire. This obviously limits armed protection to those few who can afford such security, and thus all it does is impose a similar unequal outcome. The fact that it does not limit the inequality to one racial group but imposes it upon all based upon their financial status does not change the essence of what is happening—it is a government-sponsored and government-imposed inequality in the right of self-defense.

You see, the problem is not that "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others." This will always exist in a society that does not destroy individual liberty by the forced imposition of equality of outcome for all regardless of individual effort. The problem is when the government causes the inequality because it actively and deliberately imposes it--and that is what happens with a ban like the one proposed above. Firearms are relatively inexpensive and are otherwise an available choice to protect yourself and others regardless of money or social status. Banning private firearm possession (whether of all or only certain types of firearms)—thereby limiting their possession to the professionals that only the very wealthy can afford to hire for security—is the very essence of the government putting its thumb on the scale and causing the inequality in the means of self-defense.

Again, I do agree that income inequality exists, and that this does necessarily lead to inequality of outcomes. But the fact that inequality does exist is not a sufficient reason to condone its expansion—particularly when its expansion comes by way of a government-imposed inequality sold to us by a government telling us its motives are otherwise just.

---

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Justice Brandeis, explaining why he could not condone the government's use of information in a criminal case that was obtained from the use of a wiretap which in his opinion violated the Fourth Amendment, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (192 (Dissenting opinion).

 

Good luck with that

 

The whole state. You can't be in possession of a shotgun that can hold more than 3 rounds while you're hunting in the state of NJ so if you've got a shotgun that can hold more than 3 rounds and you want to go hunting with it you've got to convert it so it can't hold more than 3 rounds by means such as plugging the magazine tube. Aside from shotguns the only other weapons you can hunt with are muzzleloaders and bows.

 

And...
Rifles, Modern
A valid Rifle Permit must be in possession while hunting with a modern rifle.

Rifles for small game hunting are allowed using limited types of .22 caliber rimfire ammo and are legal only for taking woodchuck (ammo restrictions, Small Game Regulations), raccoon and opossum with hounds (.22 shorts only) plus coyote and fox (ammo restrictions, Small Game Regulations). NO rifle woodchuck hunting on wildlife management areas or state parks, forests and recreation areas. Small game hunting with centerfire rifles is limited to not larger than .25 caliber for coyote and fox (see Small Game Regulations) and .25 caliber or larger for woodchuck (see Small Game Regulations). See also Firearms and Missiles, below.

A modern rifle magazine need not be pinned (plugged), but may be loaded with no more than three cartridges. Rife permit holders of all ages may hunt with all rifle types as allowed by New Jersey laws.

See chart on Small Game Regulations for details on small caliber rifle ammunition legal for hunting woodchucks and Small Game Regulations for the special permit coyote/fox season.

 

Revolvers can jam, cylinders can drop open, hammer springs weaken, as such they are not more reliable than semi-auto handguns.

Both require maintenance to operate properly and some like the 1911 are extremely reliable.

 

You bet they often travel as teams and killing them while in pursuit definitely requires more than 10 rounds to kill off the entire team.

 

I’ve had a revolver for 15 years never had a jam or cylinder just drop open. And one would know if a hammer spring has weakened before going out in the woods among animals. So yes, revolvers are far more reliable than semi-autos.

 

Semi auto across board ban, won't happen.
That is mostly scare tactic to rile up base. IMO. I am not worried I can't use my semi auto hunting rifle. Ever.

We have folks in USA with access to full Auto weapons. Claymore mines. Tanks, aircraft, etc. They are limited by there is many single people that have access.

 

Unless one is in some wide open space. The likely hood of ever getting off 5 rounds or more is very very small.
Either the critter will be long gone, dead already, or chewing you up.

 

Do those critters just wait where there at to get shot?
Or are they going to scatter upon hearing the 1st shot?

 

What group is the gov't favoring?

It doesn't limit security to those who only can afford it.
Just the type of weapon one can use. Or a limit on how many rounds it can contain. And you are not forbidden to hire your own security firm. Or even start your own if one is so afraid.

 

You don't think once the shooting starts they scatter and run?

Can't speak on the feral pigs. Don't live in an area that has them.

 

Thus demonstrating the legitimacy and practicality of firearms such as the AR-15, equipped with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

Pray tell. When operating a motor vehicle, or a piece of electronic equipment such as a stereo, is the maximum speed and volume utilized by default, in all circumstances even when such is not warranted, simply because the maximum output is physically available and can be used?

 

The anti-gun left believes the only way to use a rifle with a 30rd clip is to fire all 30 rounds, rapid fire, at the target.

 

They usually don't run far enough fast enough.

 

You simply haven't worked with as many revolvers as I have or you would know such is possible and does happen.

 

If celebrities are safer because everyone knows they have armed guards, wouldn't everyone else be safer if they knew we were armed?

I mean arguably that works, since they have a "higher chance" of being targeted, yet I'm willing to bet their level of per capita violent crime is less than the general populations.

 

Anyone who hunts knows you only get one shot, so how many are in your magazine are irrelevant.

 

That's what happened in Florida when it passed the shall issue concealed firearms license, crime dropped and actually shifted from the locals to the tourists to such a level the Legislature had the DHSMV stop issuing different tags for rental and lease vehicles and just issue one common tag for all vehicles.

 

Exactly.

According to the left at the time, FL would experience "rivers of blood".

 

That only applies when one is hunting a single animal, chasing down feral hogs requires shooting as many as possible and that requires a large number of rounds, more so when riding on a swamp buggy or in a helicopter.

 

Yeah if they're all massed up in large groups you'd want to make sure you have plenty of rounds if they turn in your direction.

Killing the pigs there is more like extermination than hunting though.

I know they do a lot of it from helicopters. I'm just surprised they haven't started using miniguns, there's so many of them.

You don't want this guy charging at you

 

That is true. In one episode featuring the two women who hunt feral hogs in Texas they had to shoot a large number of hogs quickly to protect a crop. They killed them fast while standing with rifles with steel sights out to what seemed like about 400 meters - very good shots.