"This Is What a Gun Control March on Washington Looks Like"

[Straw Man]

79. It is very relevant.

what I want hypothetically is irrelevant

What matters is what the law provides, and existing law does not permit banning all guns. So imagining that the government is going to take away your guns is indeed creating a straw man argument because it is entirely hypothetical. You are arguing against something that does not exist.

The fact that you can make that statement in the same thread where you are calling for changes in those very laws indicates to me a cognitive dissonance of massive proportions. How many times have I read on this very site that "the Second Amendment is obsolete and needs to be repealed"? How many times have people on this site said "Ban 'em all"? When the New York Assembly voted on Governor Cuomo's new AW ban, more than one speaker from the floor said "This is just the beginning." Am I supposed to believe that they're just kidding?

A "straw man" argument is not one that is hypothetical. It is one that is counterfactual: it argues against a position that does not exist. The position I am arguing against clearly exists. Perhaps you yourself are not that extreme, but I'm not arguing against you alone. I'm arguing against the entire mindset that thinks that hardware bans will solve the problem, and will solve it without some unintended consequences.

If you want to change the nature of military service in this country, lobby congress. If you indeed were in the national guard or a state militia, they would provide you with guns. You don't get to reform the military by creating your own backyard militia. Each excuse you create for owning assault rifles is more dangerous than the last.

"Backyard militias" is a straw man entirely of your own making. I mentioned compulsory national service -- a citizen army, such as existed before the draft was abolished and the military became a world unto itself. How you get backyard militias from that is baffling.

There is no legal purpose for an AW of the sort banned in the legislation. You can't hunt with them and you don't need them for self defense. They are designed for war and are extremely handy in slaughtering large numbers of people in movie theaters and children in schools.

You certainly can hunt with them, and people frequently do. Please do some research on this. As for their utility in self-defense, the Department of Homeland Security disagrees with your assessment:

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

-- https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3

"Select-fire" means either full-auto or semi-auto, so already beyond the capabilities of civilian versions, yet still recognized as a defensive weapon.

You and guys like you who stockpile WMD are not the only people in this country who count.

I don't own an AR. I have no intention of getting one. I have no desire to shoot anyone -- in fact, the thought makes me sick. I use firearms for sport. Nevertheless, I see the importance of the right to keep and bear arms, both in defense of one's person and in defense of one's country. And for your own sake, please don't call civilian firearms "WMD" -- that term has a specific meaning that does not apply here. You undermine your own credibility.

Yes, an AWB isn't going to change the fact that more preschool age children in this country die from gunshot wounds than police die in active duty. But it may save 50-100 lives a year, which may not matter to you but it does to most people, including a majority of gun owners who support an AWB.

And it may save no lives at all. Most of the children who die from gunshot wounds are victims of stray rounds fired in gang wars, mostly from handguns. An AWB does nothing to prevent this. It misdirects attention away from the real problem, which is the plight of inner cities and the traffic in illegal guns.

Instituting universal background checks and allowing law enforcement to maintain a database of guns will also help. Those are measures the gun lobby opposes because of their relentless determination to protect criminals, some of their best customers.

Nowhere have I stated opposition to universal background checks: that is another straw man of your own making. "Relentless determination to protect criminals"? Do you actually know any gun people? Most of the ones I know are law-and-order types: active or retired law enforcement, retired military, etc. They know that criminals are the ones who are ruining it for the rest of us. Sorry, no sale there.

Yes, I would characterize accusing people of having blood on their hands as "hate-filled rhetoric," especially when your accusations are based on things they haven't done and words they haven't said. And again I ask you: If you feel that your children are in imminent danger, why do you oppose armed guards in schools?