PDA

View Full Version : Second Amendment Heroes


Pages : [1] 2

haymarketmartyr
11-07-2009, 10:20 AM
It is about time that we established something like a Hall of Fame to honor true American heroes of the US Constitution. Just like the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, we need a building to house an ongoing memorial to the men and women who have sacrificed and struggled to make the Constitution a reality in our lives. One room should be set aside for the heroes of the Second Amendment, sometimes called the Right To Bear Arms.

As the initial nominees for such an honor I suggest we induct all thirteen of the people at Ft. Hood, Texas who paid the ultimate price so that the rest of us can have legal and easy access to obtain weapons capable of shooting over forty people in minutes. We could also go back to other such mass shootings such as Columbine High School from 1999 in which 13 people were gunned down dead and include those people who also paid the ultimate price for the rest of our rights to own powerful weapons of death. Of course, we should also include the 32 dead who paid for our freedom at the 2007 Viriginia Tech murders as well. Then there were the Xerox murders in Hawaii in 1999 where seven were slain ... bet you forget about that one .... see why we need this place? And another recently from the front page but now forgotten would be the eleven who died in Geneva County earlier this very year.

The only thing I would also suggest is that the Second Amendment Heroes Room be a very big one which will grow in time with the many others who will also pay the ultimate price so that the rest of us can buy such weapons. If one has not paid the ultimate price, they are not eligible for inclusion. So the Chuck Hestons and Wayne La Pierres of the world need not apply. Others paid the price for them. They sacrificed nothing.

and to beat you to the punch... yes indeed.... this is one truly sick idea. But not half as sick as the reality that is behind it.

Scumpup
11-07-2009, 10:46 AM
So, is there anything you actually wanted to debate or shall I just toss this on the "witnessing" pile?

DanBlather
11-07-2009, 10:58 AM
The plaques for the Ft Hood heroes at the Hall of Fame can use the wording: "Murdered by an Islamic Terrorist Using His 2nd Amendment Rights".

Odesio
11-07-2009, 11:11 AM
The plaques for the Ft Hood heroes at the Hall of Fame can use the wording: "Murdered by an Islamic Terrorist Using His 2nd Amendment Rights".

Way to merge threads! :)

Squink
11-07-2009, 11:22 AM
"Murdered by an Islamic Terrorist Using His 2nd Amendment Rights"."Now we're fighting them here because we spent too long dicking around to no good purpose over there"?

haymarketmartyr
11-07-2009, 11:59 AM
from Dan Blather

The plaques for the Ft Hood heroes at the Hall of Fame can use the wording: "Murdered by an Islamic Terrorist Using His 2nd Amendment Rights".


If that is what the facts reveal, that is fine with me. Of course, that plaque would not contain that sort of statement for the Columbine victims, or the Virginia Tech victims, or the Xerox victims, or the Geneva County victims ...... and on and on and on.

aldiboronti
11-07-2009, 12:17 PM
He's a goddam soldier. Second Amendment or no Second Amendment, you think he would have found it difficult to get a gun?

And don't you think it'a little early to play politics with this tragedy?

Scumpup
11-07-2009, 12:22 PM
They aren't going to respond. They are too busy dancing joyfully in the blood of the slain. You must understand that these killings "prove" they were right in so, so many Internet arguments; and that's really what's important here.

haymarketmartyr
11-07-2009, 12:23 PM
Fact: it was not his military issued weapon which he used. He used a gun he bought privately.

Playing politics? Heavens no. It would be disgusting and repulsive to play politics while innocent Americans are being slaughtered.

Wouldn't it?????

aldiboronti
11-07-2009, 12:42 PM
Fact: it was not his military issued weapon which he used. He used a gun he bought privately.

Playing politics? Heavens no. It would be disgusting and repulsive to play politics while innocent Americans are being slaughtered.

Wouldn't it?????

But the point is that even if he hadn't bought one privately he would have had access to a gun.

And yeah, I don't think a few days' mourning would have hurt before the anti-gun crowd jumped in.

haymarketmartyr
11-07-2009, 12:46 PM
if..... If..... IF .....

like Robert DeNiro said in THE DEERHUNTER

"this is this, this isn't something else"

The best time to discuss this is when the blood has not yet dried. Or do you think people are now ready to discuss the Geneva County murders now that a respectful time has passed? Of course, that is if they even remember what horror happened in Geneva County

Scumpup
11-07-2009, 12:52 PM
You mean the best time to dance in it is when emotional responses are still fresh and before the facts are completely gathered and examined.

Scumpup
11-07-2009, 12:58 PM
Because, you know, the best legislation is always passed as a quick emotional response to tragedy. If 9/11 didn't teach us that, then we'll never learn.

haymarketmartyr
11-07-2009, 03:09 PM
The conservatarians always want a proper mourning period... followed by a proper readjustment period ... followed by a lengthy period of return normalcy. By that time nobody even remembers what happened in Geneva County ... which was the goal in the first place.

Scumpup
11-07-2009, 04:03 PM
Is that a cha-cha you're doing?
Admit it. You're actually happy about these deaths, deep down, because they "prove" you right about gun control. Everything from the OP on has been about "In Yer Face , Gun Nuts!" rather than any attempt at debate or even expression of sorrow.
Such determination to exploit human suffering for political capital would be reprehensible. To use it to score points in a discussion board argument defies description.

Squink
11-07-2009, 04:28 PM
Everything from the OP on has been about "In Yer Face , Gun Nuts!"...Not true, post #5 is a well deserved swipe at Bush's idiotic fly-paper strategery.

haymarketmartyr
11-07-2009, 04:29 PM
Why are you so against honoring the dead Americans who paid the highest price of their own lives so that others may have their Second Amendment rights?

Scumpup
11-07-2009, 05:07 PM
MOS. You might consider changing up your steps a little bit. Clearly, you're not interested in debate. Not many from your side seem willing to join you in rejoicing over this tragedy. Not many from my side seem willing to dignify you with a response.

foolsguinea
11-07-2009, 07:55 PM
"Now we're fighting them here because we spent too long dicking around to no good purpose over there"?You win the debate, & I don't mean this thread.

Martini Enfield
11-07-2009, 08:04 PM
My understanding is that the 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms, not just firearms, right?

So, the OP's proposed "Hall Of Fame" would also have to include people killed with knives, swords, daggers, bows and arrows, crossbows, spears, baseball bats, pointy sticks, and so on.

It's not just about guns, you know.

DrCube
11-07-2009, 08:11 PM
:eek:

You mean people have been killed?? With guns? Guns kill people??? Why hasn't anybody told the gun rights activists this yet? Does the government know? :confused:

This is an airtight case against guns, folks. I mean, how can you argue against that?

Argent Towers
11-07-2009, 08:13 PM
The OP is right...regular citizens shouldn't be armed. Only police officers should be armed.

Like the police officers who shot and killed all those people at...what was it called again...the Haymarket riot?

Guinastasia
11-07-2009, 09:02 PM
Why are you so against honoring the dead Americans who paid the highest price of their own lives so that others may have their Second Amendment rights?


Or rather, paid the highest price of their lives because this guy obviously snapped?

:rolleyes:

Napier
11-07-2009, 09:10 PM
Maybe our debate can be about whether pointing to a disastrous event as an example of what an obsolete policy causes necessarily means we are rejoicing in the disaster.

If an argument is important enough to want to win, does that mean winning is like dancing?

Der Trihs
11-07-2009, 09:19 PM
Or rather, paid the highest price of their lives because this guy obviously snapped?Without easy access to guns, it's unlikely so many would have been hurt or killed. In not just this, but all such mass murders. This sort of thing IS the price paid for the Second Amendment, like it or not.

SenorBeef
11-07-2009, 09:24 PM
This whole argument is a bizarre non-sequitor to me. Whenever comedians attempt to parody gun rights advocates or the NRA, they pretend that the NRA actually advocates murder and such. Like we should be celebrating this because it's what we want.

Actual good satire usually takes the actual position someone holds to an extreme. In this case it's just a non-sequitor. It doesn't resemble the position of those you're attacking in any way.

adhay
11-07-2009, 09:25 PM
"Now we're fighting them here because we spent too long dicking around to no good purpose over there"?

Snarky.

He's a goddam [added, universal] soldier. ...

And don't you think it'a little early to play politics with this tragedy?

Show me politics without tragedy and I'll show you anything else you can imagine.

Lumpy
11-07-2009, 09:42 PM
I agree with aldiboronti, he was a soldier on a military base; even if he happened to use his own gun, how hard would it have been for him to get a firearm? Even a complete ban on the civilian possession of firearms wouldn't have prevented this.

What I find supremely ironic is that on a military base filled with trained soldiers, a gunman can shoot for so long and kill so many, because regulations stipulated that personnel be unarmed except for range drill and a handful of security persons. Maybe if holstered sidearms were part of the regulation uniform, things would have been a lot different. In my mind, all this tragedy proves is that the worst of all gun situations is when a handful of people (a few rare protectors, and criminals) have guns and no one else does.

Der Trihs
11-07-2009, 10:16 PM
This whole argument is a bizarre non-sequitor to me. Whenever comedians attempt to parody gun rights advocates or the NRA, they pretend that the NRA actually advocates murder and such. Like we should be celebrating this because it's what we want.He was shooting at people who worked for the Big Bad government. The gun rights people are always talking about how we all need to be armed so we can shoot exactly the sort of people he shot; government employees. So yes, this is what they tend to advocate, on a smaller scale than they usually fantasize about. It's just not as dramatic and heroic in real life as it is in their rhetoric.

I agree with aldiboronti, he was a soldier on a military base; even if he happened to use his own gun, how hard would it have been for him to get a firearm? Considering that as I understand they are kept under guard, probably pretty hard.

What I find supremely ironic is that on a military base filled with trained soldiers, a gunman can shoot for so long and kill so many, because regulations stipulated that personnel be unarmed except for range drill and a handful of security persons. Maybe if holstered sidearms were part of the regulation uniform, things would have been a lot different.Yes; instead of an aberration, killings would likely be common. Every time someone's temper snapped, he'd be ready to kill.

And how typical that the pro-gun side's solution to a problem with guns is "MORE GUNS!"

Martini Enfield
11-07-2009, 10:31 PM
And how typical that the pro-gun side's solution to a problem with guns is "MORE GUNS!"

Well, it's been fairly widely established that "LESS GUNS!" doesn't work, and whilst "MORE GUNS!" might not necessarily be the answer, it is worth bearing in mind that the individual at Ft. Hood was eventually stopped by someone who was carrying a gun.

Der Trihs
11-07-2009, 10:35 PM
Well, it's been fairly widely established that "LESS GUNS!" doesn't work,Nonsense. America is awash in guns.

Martini Enfield
11-07-2009, 10:40 PM
Nonsense. America is awash in guns.

America is not the only country in the world, you know.

ExTank
11-07-2009, 10:42 PM
Considering that as I understand they are kept under guard, probably pretty hard.


Actually, when I was staioned at Hood, we were issued our personal weapons fairly regularly, for various guard duty details we were assigned.

We also drew all weapons at least once on a weekly basis for cleaning/maintenance. That's an M-2 .50 cal. machinegun, 2 M-240 7.62 machineguns, an M-16, and M-1911 .45ACP handguns.

We typically weren't issued ammo for routine guard duty, and certainly not for cleaning/maintenance.

But just how hard do you think it would be to get a box of .45ACP or 5.56mm from the local gun store onto post? And during the weekly cleaning, load up some clips and start taking people out?

It would'nt have been much harder than talking about it.

And yet we don't routinely see soldiers going apeshit with service weapons. Especially combat soldiers, who by now are mostly seasoned combat vets from a pretty fucked up warzone.

I'd personally be more worried about admin weenies and other assorted ash-and-trash REMFs, who never volunteered to be shot at, never thought they'd see a warzone, much less the dead bodies of American soldiers blown to shredded shit by a roadside IED.

The nutjob at Hood, being a doctor, probably never handled a service firearm beyond once-a-year qualification.

Argent Towers
11-07-2009, 11:17 PM
When was the last time you heard of a massacre in Vermont, which has the most permissive gun laws in the entire United States? Really - tell me. How often do such things happen in this gun-saturated state? And when was the last mass shooting in Switzerland - a country where every citizen keeps an automatic rifle in his home? When was it? I want to know.

Captain Amazing
11-07-2009, 11:37 PM
When was the last time you heard of a massacre in Vermont, which has the most permissive gun laws in the entire United States?

2006 in Essex, when a man killed his girlfriend's mother, and then went to the school she taught at and shot three teachers and himself. Also, about a year ago, there were shootings in the Northeast Kingdom. It wasn't a massacre, and in fact nobody was hurt, but somebody shot up a police barracks and some churches, fortunately empty at the time.

And when was the last mass shooting in Switzerland - a country where every citizen keeps an automatic rifle in his home? When was it? I want to know.

2001, the Zug massacre, where somebody in the canton of Zug who thought he was being persecuted by the government killed 14 members of the canton's parliament, injured 18 more, and then shot himself.

Martini Enfield
11-08-2009, 12:49 AM
2001, the Zug massacre, where somebody in the canton of Zug who thought he was being persecuted by the government killed 14 members of the canton's parliament, injured 18 more, and then shot himself.

That's tragic and sad, but also happened nearly a decade ago, which does rather support Argent's point that a country full of people with ready access to automatic weapons does not also equate to a country with the world's highest incidence of spree shootings.

Captain Amazing
11-08-2009, 12:57 AM
That's tragic and sad, but also happened nearly a decade ago, which does rather support Argent's point that a country full of people with ready access to automatic weapons does not also equate to a country with the world's highest incidence of spree shootings.

I'm not saying it does or it doesn't. He asked a question and I answered it. What he wants to do with that data is up to him.

I will point out that Switzerland and the United States are very different countries in ways other than gun ownership as well, and there are undoubtedly other factors contributing to the amount of gun fatalities in a country other than the amount of guns.

SenorBeef
11-08-2009, 01:01 AM
He was shooting at people who worked for the Big Bad government. The gun rights people are always talking about how we all need to be armed so we can shoot exactly the sort of people he shot; government employees.

Wait, so your case now is that gun rights advocates believe that one of the purposes of private gun ownership is so that one can join the military and then randomly kill other people in the military?


I'm so glad you're not on my side on this issue. Whenever we happen to be in agreement on an issue, I cringe everytime you speak because I know you're doing more harm to the belief than good... by a wide margin.

BrainGlutton
11-08-2009, 01:03 AM
And don't you think it'a little early to play politics with this tragedy?

Of course it is. That didn't keep the RW from starting immediately.

Der Trihs
11-08-2009, 02:28 AM
Wait, so your case now is that gun rights advocates believe that one of the purposes of private gun ownership is so that one can join the military and then randomly kill other people in the military?
No, don't distort what I'm saying. The point I was making is that the defenders of private gun ownership love to go on about how we need guns so we can kill the minions of the evil tyrannical government. In the real world, what that boils down to is crazed massacres like this.

DanBlather
11-08-2009, 04:58 AM
When was the last time you heard of a massacre in Vermont, which has the most permissive gun laws in the entire United States? But had more murders per-capita than Massachusetts with strict gun laws, and higher than two other New England states: Maine and New Hampshire.

SenorBeef
11-08-2009, 05:02 AM
No, don't distort what I'm saying. The point I was making is that the defenders of private gun ownership love to go on about how we need guns so we can kill the minions of the evil tyrannical government. In the real world, what that boils down to is crazed massacres like this.

I don't need to distort what you're saying, it's batshit.

Some gun rights advocates say that preventing a government from having a monopoly on force reduces their ability to forcefully oppress a population. This in no way translates to "Man I hope people randomly kill government employees all the time"

But this is consistent with your worldview that anyone that disagrees with you politically is a cartoonishly evil Hitler-level villain.

bdgr
11-08-2009, 06:01 AM
Tell ya what, we'll make such a hall of fame...If we get to take a name of one of the victims of a mass slaying down off the wall for every person who's life was saved by having access to a firearm. I know a bunch of them personally...I am one in fact. I bet you the hall would be empty. because people use firearms in self defense a lot more than they do for a mass shooting like Fort Hood.

I've used a gun in self defense a couple of times, never had to fire a shot. And that's how it usually goes down, the sight of a firearm is usually enough of a detterant.

As it's been said, the guy at fort hood could have gotten a weapon even if they were outlawed. He was a soldier. but even if he wasn't...pipe bombs are easy to make...

DanBlather
11-08-2009, 06:17 AM
I don't need to distort what you're saying, it's batshit.

Some gun rights advocates say that preventing a government from having a monopoly on force reduces their ability to forcefully oppress a population. This in no way translates to "Man I hope people randomly kill government employees all the time"

But this is consistent with your worldview that anyone that disagrees with you politically is a cartoonishly evil Hitler-level villain. Because we can expect great judgement from people who arm themselves to defend against the government's black helicopters. I resent the fact that the govt has a complete monopoly over nuclear weapons and handheld anti-aircraft missiles.

SenorBeef
11-08-2009, 06:22 AM
Because we can expect great judgement from people who arm themselves to defend against the government's black helicopters.

What relation does that have to the current topic? Was the Fort Hood shooter a sleeper agent who decided to join the military so one day he could try to kill as many random soldiers as he could with small arms as a political statement in support of second amendment rights?

Seriously, you're defending one of Der Trihs' off the wall points. Think about that for a minute.

The Tooth
11-08-2009, 08:26 AM
When was the last time you heard of a massacre in Vermont, which has the most permissive gun laws in the entire United States? Really - tell me. How often do such things happen in this gun-saturated state? And when was the last mass shooting in Switzerland - a country where every citizen keeps an automatic rifle in his home? When was it? I want to know.

November 13, 2007. The shooter used his military-issue weapon and ammunition to shoot up an Islamic center in Lausanne.

Vermont's population density is around 26 people/square kilometer, less than 1% that of DC. You don't hear of mass murders in Vermont because it's hard to find enough people in one place to kill them en masse, not because of their gun laws.

You've brought crime rates up before. Well, you mentioned them; you didn't actually "bring them up" as in "cause them to increase". Specifically, Alaska's crime rate. Well, I checked, and while Anchorage boasts a slightly lower murder rate per cap, it also has a rape rate three times the national average and an aggravated assault rate twice the national average, despite the guns. How does a rape rate three times the average help your argument?

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 09:51 AM
Right up front, let me say that I do not think trying to take away anyones guns is the answer to this. Let me also say that I do not think that there is any political desire from politicians and lawmakers to tackle this issue. The gun lobby, the NRA and its supporters, have effectively won the public debate regarding governmental action on guns. I do not expect government to do anything about this now or in the near future.

I would very much like to see an attitudinal step taken on this entire issue. Everything in our society has its price and there is a price to be paid for everything. We live in a society with over 100 million guns and in some states the number of guns outnumbers the number of adults in that state.

The laws in Texas made it possible for a man to purchase a handgun designed to hold 20 bullets at one time and was partially designed to be powerful enough to pierce body armor. This is legal under the law of that state.

All I want is a simple acknowledgement that in a nation with a strong Second Amendment, there is a price to be paid for that right to bear arms. And some of the people who pay that price are the innocent dead in these reoccurring incidents of gun slaughter. Lets all please simply acknowledge that there is a price to be paid and innocent people are paying it.

I do not want this to be seen as an attack on gun owners because it is not. No more than criticism of a drunk driver who kills a family of four on the highway should be seen as an attack on the bar industry or liquor industry. Sadly, when tens of millions of people drink, some to excess, there is going to be some damage associated with that activity. We have tried mightilly to change the public attitude about drinking and driving because we came to the societal conclusion that thousands of dead people from the deeds of drunk drivers was too high of a price to pay for alcohol.

Why can’t we do much the same thing regarding guns? I have no problem acknowledging that guns help protect people from crime. There are plenty of examples of this happening and one would be foolish not to admit that there are benefits to gun ownership. All I want is acknowledgement that while there is an upside, there also is a downside.

And perhaps once that is acknowledged, we can then have the discussion that government and society do not want to have now about such things like selling people handguns that can shoot twenty armor piercing bullets in under a minute.

Is that too much to ask when innocent people are paying with their very lives so that we have weapons like this? There needs to be a middle ground where rational and reasonable people can meet and discuss this issue. There has to be a middle ground somewhere in between the NRA and gun banning. I think we need to find that.

SenorBeef
11-08-2009, 09:57 AM
You're attacking a straw position. Who says that guns don't cause any sort of societal harm? The argument is over whether the benefits outweigh the harm, or if basic human rights trump a simple use/harm calculation.

What is it that you want us to do about guns? Ban murdering people with them? I'm all for it.

What you claim as "all you want" almost certainly is not indeed all you want. Your misuse of loaded terms like "armor piercing bullets" belies your agenda - or at least ignorance.

ExTank
11-08-2009, 10:04 AM
But had more murders per-capita than Massachusetts with strict gun laws, and higher than two other New England states: Maine and New Hampshire.

You can always pick-and-choose (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2) tidbits of evidence to support your claims, but the simple fact of the matter is it's not that simple.

Compare western states. Wyoming appears to be a criminal cesspit, compared to bordering Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and South Dakota. All these states have very similar, liberal gun control policies. So why the anomaly in Wyoming.

Then look at Illinois, compared to neighboring Iowa and Wisconsin; or Texas, the rootinest-tootines gun-owning state in the Union, compared to neighboring Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.

So maybe, Dan, the situation is just a little more complex than the typically moronic battlecry of "GUNS BAD!," and the single malnourished nugget of data you tossed out there.

Airman Doors, USAF
11-08-2009, 10:09 AM
The laws in Texas made it possible for a man to purchase a handgun designed to hold 20 bullets at one time and was partially designed to be powerful enough to pierce body armor. This is legal under the law of that state.

That is legal under the laws of most states. There is nothing remarkable about the FN Five-seveN or the 5.7X28 round that makes it inherently more harmful than any other weapon. As far as the armor-piercing aspect of the weapon, the round that can do that is generally unavailable to the general public. You can get it, but it's very expensive and fairly rare. With regard to ammunition capacity, again, there is nothing remarkable about that. That is only a bit more than most standard magazines, and reloads take such a small amount of time that it wouldn't matter in any case.

That's not even to mention that "armor-piercing" is a pejorative applied to many different types of ammunition. It was even applied to the Black Talon round in the eary 1990s, which was a hollow-point round, making it impossible to pierce armor. It is applied to virtually all centerfire rifle rounds.

All I want is a simple acknowledgement that in a nation with a strong Second Amendment, there is a price to be paid for that right to bear arms. And some of the people who pay that price are the innocent dead in these reoccurring incidents of gun slaughter. Lets all please simply acknowledge that there is a price to be paid and innocent people are paying it.

Who would deny that? Nobody is arguing that there is a problem with violence in this country. We do, however, argue the cause of that violence. While the presence of guns make these sorts of things possible, they are not the cause of it. That is what we disagree with.

Why can’t we do much the same thing regarding guns? I have no problem acknowledging that guns help protect people from crime. There are plenty of examples of this happening and one would be foolish not to admit that there are benefits to gun ownership. All I want is acknowledgement that while there is an upside, there also is a downside.

There is a downside. There are downsides to countless things that we as Americans are legally allowed to do. Acknowledgment of that does not do anything to address the problem.

And perhaps once that is acknowledged, we can then have the discussion that government and society do not want to have now about such things like selling people handguns that can shoot twenty armor piercing bullets in under a minute.

Government and society can therefore act by attempting to pass another ban governing these very things, just as they did in 1994. The reason that ban lapsed is because it didn't accomplish anything. Not even arguably. It didn't accomplish anything at all.

Is that too much to ask when innocent people are paying with their very lives so that we have weapons like this? There needs to be a middle ground where rational and reasonable people can meet and discuss this issue. There has to be a middle ground somewhere in between the NRA and gun banning. I think we need to find that.

The appeal to emotion is not necessary. Discuss it dispassionately and you'll find you get better results.

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 10:50 AM
Every time I get involved in these discussions something always happens that is predictable as the sun coming up tomorrow. Defenders of the gun lobby take exception to anything that criticizes their love of guns. They find a way to defend high tech weaponry of the type used in this latest slaughter. Guns like this, capable of piercing body armor and having a magazine of 20 or even 30 bullets, are simply not necessary for normal people to have.

Is there something wrong with saying that you can have a gun to protect your home or business or you can have a rifle to hunt with but you don't need a military style weapon? Yeah, I know, don't call it a "military style weapon" and you give me a lecture on why.

Gun people should face a simple fact - lots of folks in this country do not want to repeal the second amendment and accept the right to have a pistol or rifle for protection or hunting. But lots of those same people are disgusted and repulsed by the availability of guns like this and the damage they can do.

Why does this have to be an all or nothing proposition? Is there no middle ground where people can still bear arms but we are going to sensibly control and restrict what those arms are?

SenorBeef
11-08-2009, 10:58 AM
Every time I get involved in these discussions something always happens that is predictable as the sun coming up tomorrow. Defenders of the gun lobby take exception to anything that criticizes their love of guns.


"Every time I attack someone's beliefs, they defend them. WTF. Those idiots. Clearly I win."


They find a way to defend high tech weaponry of the type used in this latest slaughter. Guns like this, capable of piercing body armor and having a magazine of 20 or even 30 bullets, are simply not necessary for normal people to have.


Your fixation on "piercing body armor" is counterproductive. Damaging human flesh and piercing armor are actually quite at odds with another. For the former, you'd like a big, wide bullet that deforms or shatters in the event that it strikes the target to inflict damage. In the latter case, you want a narrow, fast, hard bullet that will maintain its integrity to travel through armor. The more "armor piercing" a bullet is, the less lethal it is and the less damage it does to people. So to say "OMG WE ALLOW ARMOR PIERCING BULLETS!" in the context of some guy shooting unarmored targets is just reacting to scary buzzwords without much thought. We'd actually be quite better off from a lethality standpoint if everyone only used armor piercing ammunition. By the way, did you know those hunting rifles you seem to have no problem with are much more ARMOR PIERCING!!!!!!!!! than any handgun by quite a large margin?


Is there something wrong with saying that you can have a gun to protect your home or business or you can have a rifle to hunt with but you don't need a military style weapon? Yeah, I know, don't call it a "military style weapon" and you give me a lecture on why.


Wouldn't want to let the facts get in your way.


Why does this have to be an all or nothing proposition? Is there no middle ground where people can still bear arms but we are going to sensibly control and restrict what those arms are?

There is quite a large middle ground actually, and we're in it. Your assumption that we're somehow in an unrestricted environment where everything goes is wrong. There are enough gun laws on the books to fill a library. There are lots of very real restrictions on guns. Your "middle ground" probably is nowhere near an actual middle ground, but is rather heavy gun control with some minimal freedoms.

Scumpup
11-08-2009, 11:02 AM
Mostly because the antis have repeatedly proven over the years that they cannot be trusted. Compromise with them has historically meant we gave something up and they shortly returned calling for further "compromise."

Grumman
11-08-2009, 11:26 AM
Does anyone have a link to Haymarketmartyr's last thread on this subject? We could save ourselves a lot of time by just reposting the counter-arguments from the last time he got a bee in his bonnet about metal boxes with springs in them and scary looking guns.

Argent Towers
11-08-2009, 11:36 AM
Vermont's population density is around 26 people/square kilometer, less than 1% that of DC. You don't hear of mass murders in Vermont because it's hard to find enough people in one place to kill them en masse, not because of their gun laws.

Bullshit argument that seems like it means something on paper but actually means nothing in reality. I used to vacation in Maine and Vermont with my family when I was a kid. There were always enough people around in any one place in Vermont that if someone wanted to, he could kill a bunch of them. Vermont is not some desolate ghost town or some kind of giant farm. There are, you know, towns, with people gathered in them...in like, restaurants and stuff. Seriously - this argument of yours about population density makes no sense.

Attack from the 3rd dimension
11-08-2009, 11:37 AM
Well, it's been fairly widely established that "LESS GUNS!" doesn't work...

It has? Again I don't get the memo. Somebody is getting fired.

Lumpy
11-08-2009, 11:56 AM
What I don't get about haymarketmartyr's whole posititon is that this tragedy supposedly had something to do with the Second Amendment. Yes it did so happen that the gunman used his own sidearms. But: He's a goddam soldier. Second Amendment or no Second Amendment, you think he would have found it difficult to get a gun?This massacre could have happened anywhere in the world, because every country in the world has armed forces and SOLDIERS HAVE GUNS. Soldiers are the one group of people who always will have guns, even when no one else does. So what, what WHAT!? does this have to do with the Second Amendment?????

kaylasdad99
11-08-2009, 12:31 PM
if..... If..... IF .....

like Robert DeNiro said in THE DEERHUNTER

"this is this, this isn't something else"

The best time to discuss this is when the blood has not yet dried. Or do you think people are now ready to discuss the Geneva County murders now that a respectful time has passed? Of course, that is if they even remember what horror happened in Geneva CountyAnd as he said in TAXI DRIVER

Are you talkin' to me? Are you...talkin' ... to ME? I don't see anyone else -- oh, wait a minunte, there's plenty of peoplle here. Never mind.

Diogenes the Cynic
11-08-2009, 12:52 PM
What I don't get about haymarketmartyr's whole posititon is that this tragedy supposedly had something to do with the Second Amendment. Yes it did so happen that the gunman used his own sidearms. But: This massacre could have happened anywhere in the world, because every country in the world has armed forces and SOLDIERS HAVE GUNS. Soldiers are the one group of people who always will have guns, even when no one else does. So what, what WHAT!? does this have to do with the Second Amendment?????
He wasn't using military weapons, but even so this is a lame point. It doesn't invalidate any of the other regular shooting sprees that happen several times a year in this country. As long as we're going to have a 2nd Amendment, we're going to have shooting sprees. It's childish to deny the correllation.

Diogenes the Cynic
11-08-2009, 12:54 PM
The plaques for the Ft Hood heroes at the Hall of Fame can use the wording: "Murdered by an Islamic Terrorist Using His 2nd Amendment Rights".
Cite that he was a terrorist?

Right now, you should change "Islamic terrorist" to "American soldier," because that's the one thing we know he was for sure.

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 01:02 PM
So there is no compromise from your side. So it always comes down to your side wanting to make this a technical discussion where you can consult your library of gun encyclopedias and your lifetime collection of gun magazines and quote specs and other "facts" designed to dull the opposition into silence.

Eventually, this crap will continue to the point where the vast majority of people can no longer stomach the weekly slaughter on the news and they will decide that enough is enough. And then you will scream and cry and wail and beg for compromise. But it will not be offered and it will be too late.

In the meantime, enjoy your pin-ups of the latest products from the merchants of death and caress them lovingly in the darkness of your homes. Count your days.

Scumpup
11-08-2009, 01:15 PM
That'd be more convincing if your side hadn't been losing in both the political and legal arenas for decades. The Clinton Administration was the final flowering. If we won't compromise, it's because you made it clear to us that each new piece of legislation was just "a good first step." Your side's often egregious ignorance about the very objects you wish to regulate/ban also makes it difficult to reach any compromise.

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 01:20 PM
So tell me this then..... there are lots of folks like myself who do not own guns but have grown to accept that the Constitution says otherwise. I accept that people can have a gun for protection or a rifle for hunting and that sort of thing. I further acknowledge that if the government ever attempted to take in all the guns that there would be a violent insurrection like we have not seen since the Civil War. I get all that.

But why doesn't your side get that lots of us just think that military style assault weapons and the cop killer type gun used in Ft. Hood are simply way over the line and are not necessary?

Yeah... I know what you fear ... today its A, and next year its B, and before you know it you have been taught to read and write all the letters. Screw that slippery slope. Just tell me about A today.

Scumpup
11-08-2009, 01:26 PM
Why do you get to tell me what I need?
Why does anybody need a car that can go faster than the legal speed limit?
Why does anybody need more than one car?
Why does anybody need alcohol?
Why does anybody need tobacco?
Why does anybody need anything beyond basic food, clothing, and shelter and who put you in charge?

DanBlather
11-08-2009, 01:55 PM
Why do you get to tell me what I need?
Why does anybody need a car that can go faster than the legal speed limit?
Why does anybody need more than one car?
Why does anybody need alcohol?
Why does anybody need tobacco?
Why does anybody need anything beyond basic food, clothing, and shelter and who put you in charge?Why does anybody need access to bio-chemical weapons?
Why does anybody need access to anti-aircraft missiles?
Why does anybody need access to plutonium?
Why does anybody need access to child pornography?
Why does anybody need access to imported plants with citrus canker?
Why does anybody need access to leaded gas?
Why does anybody need access to unsafe cribs?

Scumpup
11-08-2009, 02:07 PM
Is there a demand for any of those things, DanBlather?
Is there a Constitutionally guaranteed right to any of those things?

You're side has tried all manner of bullshitty and questionably legal ways to accomplish your ends. Primarily what you accomplished was to galvanize gun owners and create the militant 2A lobby that exists today. That must really chap your ass.
Your side knows what they have to do. You have to change the Constitution itself. There are procedures in place for you to do just that. All you need is the will and enough support from the people of this country. If you can't muster those things, then I guess you'll just have to content yourself with impotently whining on the Internet.
As for me, it's a nice day here. I believe I may pack up an AR-15 ("assault weapon"), an AK ("assault weapon"), my PSL ("sniper weapon"), and a high-capacity handgun or two ("assault pistols") and enjoy a little range time.

Todderbob
11-08-2009, 02:12 PM
But why doesn't your side get that lots of us just think that military style assault weapons and the cop killer type gun used in Ft. Hood are simply way over the line and are not necessary?Which one of these is "military style assault weapon" and which one poses the most danger, in a mall?

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/firearms-images-products-422l.jpg
http://www.soksa.com/assets/publicDocs/userFiles/icy/image/ar-15.jpg
http://www.galleryofguns.com/ProdImageSm/HOWA1500ThSNmbl.jpg

I guess the real question is; do you understand, at all, what you're trying to ban? These guns are not functionally different than the ones don't mind not banning. The only difference is cosmetic.

It's like banning Porche body styles, but allowing for people (or even off-the-line) VW Bugs with 9-11 turbo engines in them.

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 02:20 PM
Your "needs" - if indeed that is what they truly are and not merely irrational manifestations of social pathologies or mental illness - are trivial and inconsequential compared to the needs of society. And it is the rest of society which will determine that for you.

Todderbob - sorry, but I will not be sucked into selecting from your favorite pin-ups of Miss November, Miss December and Miss April.

Todderbob
11-08-2009, 02:23 PM
Todderbob - sorry, but I will not be sucked into selecting from your favorite pin-ups of Miss November, Miss December and Miss April.Way to be condescending and evasive.

I don't own any of those guns, nor I don't intend to (edit:and for clarity, I don't have a picture of a gun anywhere in my home). And I don't appreciate the fact that you've resulted to childishness and immaturity when I've done nothing of the sort -- in this thread or any other.

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 02:32 PM
Of course not. What you do intend to do, and what you are attempting to do is to make this about technical specifications of weaponry at which you will kick my ass because you are into this particular slice of life and I am not. That is your particular game because it works for you and makes you sound smart and the other side sound dumb.

Why do you and others keep pretending that its all or nothing? Lots of regular folks do not mind gun ownership and may even be in favor it it but are deadset against anything more than the "normal" kind of pistol or rifle.

Yeah, I know and don't bother with "what is normal" cause you know damn well what I mean.

Scumpup
11-08-2009, 02:32 PM
Man, I haven't seen rhetoric like that since the stoner lefties of the 70's. Power to the people, baby!

Todderbob
11-08-2009, 02:40 PM
Of course not. What you do intend to do, and what you are attempting to do is to make this about technical specifications of weaponry at which you will kick my ass because you are into this particular slice of life and I am not. That is your particular game because it works for you and makes you sound smart and the other side sound dumb.

Why do you and others keep pretending that its all or nothing? Lots of regular folks do not mind gun ownership and may even be in favor it it but are deadset against anything more than the "normal" kind of pistol or rifle.

Yeah, I know and don't bother with "what is normal" cause you know damn well what I mean.What I'm telling you is that the 'abnormal' stuff (military style assault weapons -- Selective Fire weapons) have been heavily regulated (and registered) since the 1930s and banned since 1986 (with the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protections Act).

What I'm talking about is familiarizing yourself with the topic, before you suggest trying to ban anything. Whether firearm, vehicle or anything else.

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 02:50 PM
If what you say is true, then how did this murderer in Texas walk into a gun shop and buy something that should have been banned long ago according to you?

The Tooth
11-08-2009, 02:51 PM
Bullshit argument that seems like it means something on paper but actually means nothing in reality.

Yeah, this conversation is over.

Todderbob
11-08-2009, 02:58 PM
If what you say is true, then how did this murderer in Texas walk into a gun shop and buy something that should have been banned long ago according to you?What he used was what you refer to as a 'normal gun.'

There was nothing special about the firearm used, the fact that it was labled the "cop killer" pistol is something that the media has done.

The FN-5.7 has less ballistic power than than a 10mm pistol, or a 9mm +P.

The military version of the ammunition is specifically designed to penetrate body armor, but it's not available to the general public. If he got that ammunition, he got it through the military.

The Tooth
11-08-2009, 02:59 PM
I mean, you may feel free to explain why Anchorage's rape rate is so high despite your claim that carrying guns makes crime go down for the home audience, and I may even read it. But as for discussing the matter with you, forget it. If you're going to use personal impressions of fuzzy memories of places you went a couple of times when you were a kid as references for crime statistics, there's no point.

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 03:11 PM
Sorry Todderbob - I disagree totally. That is precisely the type of weapon that revolts many Americans and spurs on talk of banning weapons.

Like I said before, you want to have a pistol or rifle or shotgun for protection or hunting - fine with me. Forget the rest of this stuff as it goes way beyond protection or hunting or any other civilized usage in our society.

Why don't you tell me this? What would somebody need a pistol like that for as opposed to something like the old Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry cannon or the type of pistol issued to most police officers on the street for daily usage? I would be greatly interested in knowing the answer to that.

The idea that
*** someone can think of it
*** technology can construct it
*** arms merchants can sell it

so thus its legit, is not acceptable to me and I would suspect lots of other Americans.

ExTank
11-08-2009, 03:23 PM
So there is no compromise from your side. So it always comes down to your side wanting to make this a technical discussion where you can consult your library of gun encyclopedias and your lifetime collection of gun magazines and quote specs and other "facts" designed to dull the opposition into silence.

We've been compromising since 1934.

In '94, we said, "Enough!"

If you don't want to be informed of facts in crafting your wet-dream utopian gun control laws, then tough shit. Guns are here to stay.

And so are we.


Eventually, this crap will continue to the point where the vast majority of people can no longer stomach the weekly slaughter on the news and they will decide that enough is enough. And then you will scream and cry and wail and beg for compromise. But it will not be offered and it will be too late.

Fine. Draft an amendment to the Constitution. Get your signatures, your votes, whatever. That's the honest way to go about it.

But oh! Wait! It'll never fly! Even dyed-in-the-wool gun haters like the Clintons, like Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, even they know this.

So I guess it's back to defendinmg aginst the incremental creep of the"common sense regulations" du jour.


In the meantime, enjoy your pin-ups of the latest products from the merchants of death and caress them lovingly in the darkness of your homes. Count your days.

In the meantime, cower in your homes, whine/beg/pule like a useless jackoff on the internet, while the rest of us enjoy target shooting and hunting, and enjoy our Constitutionally protected right.

JXJohns
11-08-2009, 03:42 PM
Of course not. What you do intend to do, and what you are attempting to do is to make this about technical specifications of weaponry at which you will kick my ass because you are into this particular slice of life and I am not. That is your particular game because it works for you and makes you sound smart and the other side sound dumb.

Why do you and others keep pretending that its all or nothing? Lots of regular folks do not mind gun ownership and may even be in favor it it but are deadset against anything more than the "normal" kind of pistol or rifle.

Yeah, I know and don't bother with "what is normal" cause you know damn well what I mean.


Since you cannot be bothered to learn about those things that you would so willingly ban, you'll have to forgive us for not being interested in allowing you to determine what is "normal" or not. There are plenty here and other places who would gladly give you the 101 level course in basic firearms identification and function without attempting to make you feel dumb.

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 04:01 PM
That is the tactic you have adopted to "protect" yourself from the rest of civilization. You want it to be about how much knowledge one has about technical specifications of weaponry and not about the absurdity of having such weapons in a civilized nation. It comes across time and time again and it is painfully obvious that it is a curtain you all hide behind whenever the subject comes up.

Argent Towers
11-08-2009, 04:05 PM
Am I seriously the only one who is amused that the author of this screed against civilian gun ownership, on the grounds that it leads to massacres of innocent citizens, has a username memorializing one of the most atrocious incidents in American history of unarmed citizens being massacred by armed police?

Really? I'm the only one who sees the irony in this?

JXJohns
11-08-2009, 04:14 PM
That is the tactic you have adopted to "protect" yourself from the rest of civilization. You want it to be about how much knowledge one has about technical specifications of weaponry and not about the absurdity of having such weapons in a civilized nation. It comes across time and time again and it is painfully obvious that it is a curtain you all hide behind whenever the subject comes up.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I am willing to waste my own time in the hopes that you would learn that there is no clear line of distinction between "normal" guns and everything else, other than the line that you seem to want to draw yourself, from an admitted and self imposed uneducated viewpoint.

Sanity Challenged
11-08-2009, 04:31 PM
I've read every damn post in this thread. Can I be in the Free Speech Hall of Fame now?

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 04:51 PM
Several people here feel I need some ecucation. Fine. I ask again

Why don't you tell me this? Why would somebody have a legitimate and legal need for a pistol like the one used in the Ft. Hood murders for as opposed to something like the type of standard issue police officer pistol or even the old Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry cannon? I would be greatly interested in knowing the answer to that.

Todderbob
11-08-2009, 05:03 PM
Several people here feel I need some ecucation. Fine. I ask again

Why don't you tell me this? Why would somebody have a legitimate and legal need for a pistol like the one used in the Ft. Hood murders for as opposed to something like the type of standard issue police officer pistol or even the old Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry cannon? I would be greatly interested in knowing the answer to that.Because there is no difference between the gun he used and a "regular cop issued firearm," I already explained this and you said I was wrong. :-/

Argent Towers
11-08-2009, 05:10 PM
Why does someone need a Toyota Camry, a Nissan Maxima, or a Ford Focus instead of a Crown Victoria? Why does someone need to wipe his ass with Charmin toilet paper or Angel Soft paper or Huggy Bear paper or whatever the hell else people use to wipe their asses with? There are different kinds of cars, different kinds of toilet paper, different kinds of pistols. Why does anyone need to eat steak, salmon, chicken, tomatoes, etc? We could all get the same nutrition from a gruel made of mashed vegetables fortified with protein and vitamins!

JXJohns
11-08-2009, 05:22 PM
Several people here feel I need some ecucation. Fine. I ask again

Why don't you tell me this? Why would somebody have a legitimate and legal need for a pistol like the one used in the Ft. Hood murders for as opposed to something like the type of standard issue police officer pistol or even the old Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry cannon? I would be greatly interested in knowing the answer to that.

It was just a pistol. It was not a super weapon or anything particularly special. It was the evil intent of the user that caused the carnage, not a trait endowed upon the implement. I'm not the first to mention this.

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 05:37 PM
It was just a pistol!!!!!!

And I guess every pistol is made to fire 20 shots with a force capable of piercing body armor?

I ask again for a direct answer

Why would somebody have a legitimate and legal need for a pistol like the one used in the Ft. Hood murders for as opposed to something like the type of standard issue police officer pistol or even the old Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry cannon? I would be greatly interested in knowing the answer to that.

sqweels
11-08-2009, 05:41 PM
Several people here feel I need some ecucation. Fine. I ask again

Why don't you tell me this? Why would somebody have a legitimate and legal need for a pistol like the one used in the Ft. Hood murders for as opposed to something like the type of standard issue police officer pistol or even the old Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry cannon? I would be greatly interested in knowing the answer to that.
Because there's really no difference. Automatic handguns as oppose to revolvers have a higher ammo capacity, but reloading is quick enough that the damage a shooter does is more likely to be limited by how much he's carrying rather than his weapon's capacity.

There's no practical meaning to the term "military style", especially when it comes to handguns Automatic pistols with box-type magazines have been around in private hands for a century, and there's nowhere to draw the line other than to include all of them.

As for rifles, all ~.30 caliber bolt-action as well as semi-automatic rifles would be considered "normal" firearm. Semi-automatic versions of rifles designed for military rifles are, again apart from clip capacity, no different from semi-automatic rifles designed for deer hunting.

We do draw the line at fully-automatic machine guns and heavy .50 caliber rifles. These occupy a grey area between civilian-style and strictly military and special permits are required. Any ordnance heavier than that is banned outright for civilian use.

MsRobyn
11-08-2009, 05:45 PM
You have now been given the answer, multiple times.

For the record, the police are issued multiple different kinds of weapons depending on the weapon and caliber purchased. The Glock 22, one of the more popular models, has a 15-round magazine. The Sig P226, another popular model, has an available 20-round magazine. The "Dirty harry gun", a .44 magnum revolver, is vastly more powerful than the ammunition in question. And, as I said on the last page, there is nothing inherent in the FN Five-seveN that makes it more deadly than any other weapon.

I know you don't want to hear this. For some reason you have latched onto something that you have been told, and you refuse to believe anybody who tells you differently.

Lumpy
11-08-2009, 05:49 PM
!!!!!!

And I guess every pistol is made to fire 20 shots with a force capable of piercing body armor?

I ask again for a direct answer

Why would somebody have a legitimate and legal need for a pistol like the one used in the Ft. Hood murders for as opposed to something like the type of standard issue police officer pistol or even the old Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry cannon? I would be greatly interested in knowing the answer to that.Standard police issue these days is a 15-20 round Glock in either 9mm or .40 cal. Ask them why a six-shot .38 Special isn't enough.

haymarketmartyr
11-08-2009, 05:50 PM
I found this on bnet/sports publications

There are more reasons than low bid why this 16-shot .40 leads in US police handgun sales. More police departments seem to have adopted the Glock 22 than any other make and model. For years, the FBI has given new agents their choice of a 16-shot G22 or the slightly smaller 14-shot Glock 23.

From the frozen wasteland patrolled by the Alaska State Troopers to the 120-degree streets covered by Phoenix PD, the Glock 22 is standard issue along with numerous other state police agencies and countless sheriff's departments.

How does the Ft. Hood murder weapon compare to the Glock 22 in ways other than it has a larger ammo capacity 20 or 30 versus 16 shot?

JXJohns
11-08-2009, 05:51 PM
!!!!!!

And I guess every pistol is made to fire 20 shots with a force capable of piercing body armor?

I ask again for a direct answer

Why would somebody have a legitimate and legal need for a pistol like the one used in the Ft. Hood murders for as opposed to something like the type of standard issue police officer pistol or even the old Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry cannon? I would be greatly interested in knowing the answer to that.

You can get a 20 round or larger magazine for just about every semi auto pistol out there. As was explained earlier, piercing body armor is not unique either. The hunting rifles that you like to think of as "normal" can pierce it just fine. The only way that this pistol could do the same was if the shooter used ammo that is only availabe to the Military and Law Enforcement.

But that would be against the law.

JXJohns
11-08-2009, 05:53 PM
I found this on bnet/sports publications



How does the Ft. Hood murder weapon compare to the Glock 22 in ways other than it has a larger ammo capacity 20 or 30 versus 16 shot?

Similar in size, weight, color and function. The G-22 can be equipped to hold up to 33 rounds if the user is so inclined.

Airman Doors, USAF
11-08-2009, 05:58 PM
How does the Ft. Hood murder weapon compare to the Glock 22 in ways other than it has a larger ammo capacity 20 or 30 versus 16 shot?

I am going to assume that, for once, you are asking this in good faith.

.40 S&W ballistics:

165 gr (10.7 g) Speer Gold Dot JHP 1,150 ft/s (350 m/s) 484 ft·lbf (656 J)


5.7X28 ballistics:

28 gr (1.8 g) SS195LF JHP 716 m/s (2,350 ft/s) 467 J (344 ft·lbf)


.22 Long Rifle ballistics (for comparison purposes):

30 gr (1.9 g) Copper-Plated RN 1,750 ft/s (530 m/s) 204 ft·lbf (277 J)


In addition, you have to factor in the weight of the projectile. A big, heavy projectile will do much more damage than a small, fast projectile. In actual fact, the 5.7X28 has more in common with the .22 LR than with the "service" calibers.

I'm not trying to fool you with numbers or drown you with minutiae, I'm simply trying to answer your question.

ExTank
11-08-2009, 06:52 PM
I've read every damn post in this thread. Can I be in the Free Speech Hall of Fame now?

I dunno. Did you bring beer and pretzels?

amarone
11-08-2009, 06:57 PM
My understanding is that the 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms, not just firearms, right?

So, the OP's proposed "Hall Of Fame" would also have to include people killed with knives, swords, daggers, bows and arrows, crossbows, spears, baseball bats, pointy sticks, and so on.

It's not just about guns, you know. Baseball bats are "arms"? Anyway, you have a great idea. Having a great big building for all the gun homicides, then a much smaller one for alll other forms put together, should get the message across quite nicely.

Martini Enfield
11-08-2009, 07:01 PM
It has? Again I don't get the memo. Somebody is getting fired.

The severe restrictions on firearms in the UK and Australia still don't prevent people getting shot there.

And in relation to the OP: Are there any anti-gun people out there who are A) knowledgeable about Firearms and[/b] B) don't want them banned purely because [i]they don't like them?

The OP probably doesn't want to know that the cap-and-ball .44 Walker Dragoon was the most powerful handgun in the world until surprisingly recently. Modern reproductions of the gun are (AIUI) considered "Pre-1898" (Antique) and can subsequently be purchased by pretty much anyone over the age of 18, even by mail order.

Similarly, the Winchester Model 1873 lever-action rifle fires a .44-40 cartridge (which is pretty hard hitting) and a trained user can get two shots a second out of it.

Anyone with any experience with actual automatic weapons can tell you that a magazine-fed SMG or assault rifle on full auto will empty its entire magazine in about five seconds, and unless you have some sort of training, much of that five seconds will likely be spent shooting at ceilings due to muzzle climb.

In short, the reason firearm enthusiasts keep brining these "facts and figures" out is to try and educate people like the OP who just don't get the fact that you can't ban guns just because of the way they look or which movie villain's henchmen used them.

I appreciate lots of people don't like guns. That's fine. I don't like footy. But I don't call for the abolition of footy and the demonisation of everyone involved because some of the players do the wrong thing sometimes.

Martini Enfield
11-08-2009, 07:09 PM
Baseball bats are "arms"? Anyway, you have a great idea. Having a great big building for all the gun homicides, then a much smaller one for alll other forms put together, should get the message across quite nicely.

"Arms" are any kind of weapon, which include clubs, which includes baseball bats- and, arguably, golf clubs, MagLite torches, and rolling pins. You'll note that, like firearms, all those things have perfectly mundane uses that don't involve killing people- but that doesn't mean they can't be used as weapons all the same. And as I understand it, more people are killed with Not Guns than with guns each year- knives are a particular problem in places like the UK, but I don't hear calls to ban people from being able to purchase cutlery and cooking knives full stop.

Squink
11-08-2009, 07:24 PM
"Arms" are any kind of weapon, which include clubs, which includes baseball bats- and, arguably, golf clubs, MagLite torches, and rolling pins.A few years ago there was a thread here about someone facing charges for employing a WMD. The weapon in question was a rock.
Thankfully we've moved into a somewhat less hysterical era.

DrCube
11-08-2009, 07:27 PM
I don't hear calls to ban people from being able to purchase cutlery and cooking knives full stop.
But what about those "military style" knives, with the Rambo notches in the side and the thing that goes up? Why does anybody need a knife with a serrated edge? I don't have a problem with "normal" butter knives and even the occasional steak knife, but the public is getting sick of all the crime perpetrated with giant, commercial-grade butcher knives! And don't get me started on electric knives! They might as well advertise "Chop heads off without any effort at all!". Knife nuts are sick, I tell you.

Czarcasm
11-08-2009, 08:07 PM
The severe restrictions on firearms in the UK and Australia still don't prevent people getting shot there.Have they reduced the number of firearms-related incidents any?

Scumpup
11-08-2009, 08:14 PM
Google the phrase "knife culture" and you'll find all manner of whining about the need to regulate knives in the UK.
The antis blew their wad back in '94. They now have no political traction to speak of. They can't get bills out of committee, much less passed. They are largely irrelevant. We must, naturally, watch them and keep them marginalized, but we can enjoy the fact that threads like this are the limits of their capabilities.

amarone
11-08-2009, 08:27 PM
And as I understand it, more people are killed with Not Guns than with guns each year. Then you understand incorrectly. The OP was clearly talking about the US (e.g. the Second Amendment comments), and your statement is emphatically not the case in the US. Homicides by gun are more than twice all other types put together. Source: Bureau of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm). In the most recent year for which they have statistics, homicides by gun = 11,346; all other homicides = 5,346.

amarone
11-08-2009, 08:33 PM
Have they reduced the number of firearms-related incidents any? In the UK there have been severe restrictions for a long time, so it is tough to say. The only signigificant change in recent years was the handgun ban, which was really designed to prevent events like the Dunblane massacre. There were so few handguns anyway that the ban has probably had little effect on gun crime in general. There were only 160,000 handguns out of a total of over 2 million guns in the UK.

If you ban something that doesn't happen, it doesn't have much effect.

Whether the ban had its desired effect on decreasing the likelihood of a masscare is difficult to say. It is true that there has not been a massacre since, but as there have only been two in modern history, the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.

Todderbob
11-08-2009, 08:39 PM
Have they reduced the number of firearms-related incidents any?Not according to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm).

Or according to the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html), or Guardian. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/03/london-gun-crime-shootings-rise)

amarone
11-08-2009, 08:48 PM
Not according to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm). Er, that article says:
But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.


However, they only show data from 1998/9, whereas the ban occurred in 1997. You should really study for several years before and after. However, I still contend that the handgun ban was pretty much irrelevant as it affected so few guns/people.

You hear people in the US comment on how the people in the UK no longer had the means to defend themselves. Well, they didn't before the ban either - "self defence" has not been a permissible reason to own a gun since 1946. Okay, you say, they lie about the reason, then buy a gun to protect themselves. Apart from the fact that, trust me, that didn't happen - it is just not in our culture - I go back to the statistics that the ban removed just 160,000 out of over 2 million guns. Over 90% of the guns are still out there. Is a burglar going to be massively emboldened by the fact that his victim is 8% less likely to be armed?

Todderbob
11-08-2009, 09:07 PM
Er, that article says:That includes airgun crime.

Martini Enfield
11-08-2009, 09:42 PM
Then you understand incorrectly. The OP was clearly talking about the US (e.g. the Second Amendment comments), and your statement is emphatically not the case in the US. Homicides by gun are more than twice all other types put together. Source: Bureau of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm). In the most recent year for which they have statistics, homicides by gun = 11,346; all other homicides = 5,346.

That's interesting but doesn't invalidate my secondary point that other things are used to kill people besides firearms.

Grumman
11-08-2009, 09:44 PM
So there is no compromise from your side. So it always comes down to your side wanting to make this a technical discussion where you can consult your library of gun encyclopedias and your lifetime collection of gun magazines and quote specs and other "facts" designed to dull the opposition into silence.
See, this is why compromise is not an option. We are telling you outright what you need to understand in order to make reasonable decisions on this subject. If you keep wallowing in your own wilful ignorance and insulting us for being informed, we are going to keep treating you as someone who cannot be trusted to make rational laws.

You are like the anti-vaxers. If they refuse to learn about why they should or should not oppose vaccinations, their opinions are worthless. Just because they are loud and stubborn as mules does not mean their position has merit.

amarone
11-08-2009, 09:54 PM
That's interesting but doesn't invalidate my secondary point that other things are used to kill people besides firearms. No gun control advocate would ever deny that. I am utterly mystified why it is viewed to be a pertinent argument. Some of us want to control guns because they are such effective killing utensils that we believe they result in higher death rates. Pointing out that you can kill with a baseball bat is irrelevant. Sure, there is the occasional murder or even double-murder by baseball bat, but how many baseball bat massacres have there been? How many drive-by-battings?

If there were 11,000 basbeball bat murders per year in the US, I would think it perhaps worth looking into their control. But I bet the number is closer to 11.

DanBlather
11-08-2009, 09:57 PM
No gun control advocate would ever deny that. I am utterly mystified why it is viewed to be a pertinent argument. Some of us want to control guns because they are such effective killing utensils that we believe they result in higher death rates. Pointing out that you can kill with a baseball bat is irrelevant. Sure, there is the occasional murder or even double-murder by baseball bat, but how many baseball bat massacres have there been? How many drive-by-battings?

If there were 11,000 basbeball bat murders per year in the US, I would think it perhaps worth looking into their control. But I bet the number is closer to 11.There is nothing harder in sports than hitting a round head with a round bat.

amarone
11-08-2009, 10:05 PM
That includes airgun crime.So?

The article also does a lot of comparison against the previous year. The fact that gun crimes fell versus the previous year is not particularly relevant either.

If you want to get a picture of the effectiveness of strict gun control, take a look at the actual numbers, in a country of 60 million people.

- 59 homicides. If the US had the same rate, that would equate to 300, versus an actual 11,000.

- 18,489 total offences. Atlanta has more than that.

Overall, gun control has been very successful in the UK. You have to look at the long history to assess the effects and where it has left us - with very low gun crime. The 1997 handgun ban was an irrelevant distraction that just causes confusion to people not familiar with the UK.

DanBlather
11-08-2009, 10:09 PM
Is there a demand for any of those things, DanBlather?
Is there a Constitutionally guaranteed right to any of those things?

You're side has tried all manner of bullshitty and questionably legal ways to accomplish your ends. Primarily what you accomplished was to galvanize gun owners and create the militant 2A lobby that exists today. That must really chap your ass.
Your side knows what they have to do. You have to change the Constitution itself. There are procedures in place for you to do just that. All you need is the will and enough support from the people of this country. If you can't muster those things, then I guess you'll just have to content yourself with impotently whining on the Internet.
As for me, it's a nice day here. I believe I may pack up an AR-15 ("assault weapon"), an AK ("assault weapon"), my PSL ("sniper weapon"), and a high-capacity handgun or two ("assault pistols") and enjoy a little range time.You don't think there is a demand for plutonium, really? Or child pornography? You don't think the Al Qaeda cells lurking in the US want to get their hands on an anti-aircraft missile? The 2A arguments are lame; unfettered access to guns is either good or bad for society on it's own merit. If the SC ever decides that no restrictions whatsoever can be placed on weapons, the country will rise up in horror and amend the Constitution.

Martini Enfield
11-08-2009, 10:15 PM
No gun control advocate would ever deny that. I am utterly mystified why it is viewed to be a pertinent argument. Some of us want to control guns because they are such effective killing utensils that we believe they result in higher death rates. Pointing out that you can kill with a baseball bat is irrelevant. Sure, there is the occasional murder or even double-murder by baseball bat, but how many baseball bat massacres have there been? How many drive-by-battings?

If there were 11,000 basbeball bat murders per year in the US, I would think it perhaps worth looking into their control. But I bet the number is closer to 11.

The number of non-firearm killings in the US is over 5,000 apparently. Baseball bats make up a small part of that, sure. But the thing is, people keep dividing weapons into two types: "Guns" and "Everything Else". People have gone on rampages with swords in the modern age, for example.

Todderbob
11-08-2009, 10:31 PM
So?

The article also does a lot of comparison against the previous year. The fact that gun crimes fell versus the previous year is not particularly relevant either.

If you want to get a picture of the effectiveness of strict gun control, take a look at the actual numbers, in a country of 60 million people.

- 59 homicides. If the US had the same rate, that would equate to 300, versus an actual 11,000.

- 18,489 total offences. Atlanta has more than that.

Overall, gun control has been very successful in the UK. You have to look at the long history to assess the effects and where it has left us - with very low gun crime. The 1997 handgun ban was an irrelevant distraction that just causes confusion to people not familiar with the UK.But to compare the 59 gun homicides to the total US homicides, you have to compare the total crime rate of the USA with the total crime crime rate of the UK.

The USA doesn't just have more gun crime, it also has more foot, knife and fist crime.


Is that a product of there being more feet knives and fists in the USA?

Martini Enfield
11-08-2009, 10:48 PM
So?

Airguns are basically toys you have to be careful with, for the most part. Yes, there high powered ultra dangerous airguns, and yes, they can put your eye out, but really, a bog-standard .177 calibre air pistol is good for knocking over aluminium cans and punching small holes in bits of paper no more than 10m away and not much else.

Overall, gun control has been very successful in the UK. You have to look at the long history to assess the effects and where it has left us - with very low gun crime. The 1997 handgun ban was an irrelevant distraction that just causes confusion to people not familiar with the UK.

I think the culture has a lot to do with it as well, to be fair. And even though guns were widely available in the UK until fairly recently, there's still been a cultural idea of them as being for target shooting, hunting, or collecting, with the "shooting people" option reserved almost exclusively for Her Majesty's Armed Forces and appropriately trained members of the constabulary.

Lumpy
11-08-2009, 11:24 PM
You don't think there is a demand for plutonium, really? Or child pornography? You don't think the Al Qaeda cells lurking in the US want to get their hands on an anti-aircraft missile? The 2A arguments are lame; unfettered access to guns is either good or bad for society on it's own merit. If the SC ever decides that no restrictions whatsoever can be placed on weapons, the country will rise up in horror and amend the Constitution.About all the Supreme Court is likely to rule in the forseeable future (and even this isn't a sure thing) is that states and municipalities cannot flatly ban possession of handguns by the general public. It would be a pro-2nd person's dream come true if the SC ever went so far as to mandate a "shall issue" standard on public carry for all fifty states. In any event states would still retain the authority to proscribe gun possession by felons, persons adjudicated to be mentally ill, minors, etc. No one is claiming (except as a straw man) that the Second Amendment, any more than any of the other articles of the Bill of Rights, bestows a boundless libertarian immunity from government authority. Pro-gun people simply don't want blanket bans on gun possession by law-abiding citizens, any more than we would want a crowd-control ordinance that predefined all unauthorized public gatherings as riots.

So does that mean that people can own nukes? I confess that I just don't know where to logically draw a line. For all practical intents and purposes, it depends on the constitutionality of laws restricting access to explosives, since virtually all modern heavy military ordinance (including nukes) either use explosive warheads or charges of propellant large enough to be considered explosive devices in their own right. I will concede that it would be anomolous to say the least if it were held constitutional for a state to ban fireworks within its borders but had to allow its citizens to possess shoulder-launced rockets. I do think private citizens should be allowed to own anything a civil police department is allowed to own. But this is besides the point since the OP feels that semi-automatic handguns are already too lethal to be "legitimate" for private possession. Presumably we hoi polli should be limited to six-shot revolvers (or muzzle loaders) while "military" guns are reserved for soldiers and police- you know, those well-screened people we can trust to never abuse their privilege.

And finallly, anything supported by a large enough proportion of the American public to pass a constitutional amendment is perfectly legit, even banning guns. Go for it if you can.

Argent Towers
11-08-2009, 11:34 PM
But this is besides the point since the OP feels that semi-automatic handguns are already too lethal to be "legitimate" for private possession. Presumably we hoi polli should be limited to six-shot revolvers (or muzzle loaders) while "military" guns are reserved for soldiers and police- you know, those well-screened people we can trust to never abuse their privilege.

Yes. Like - for the third damn time now - the paragons of responsible police gun use who murdered a bunch of civilians at the Haymarket Riot.

The poor guys. You could even say they were Haymarket martyrs.

OP - you should change your name. Because otherwise, you're disgracing the memory of what happened at Haymarket. You're advocating the disempowerment of the people, and consequently the further empowerment of the government. You're saying that the average American has no place owning a gun "intended" for the police - and you call yourself "Haymarket martyr?" Change your damn name.

Attack from the 3rd dimension
11-09-2009, 12:56 AM
Which one of these is "military style assault weapon" and which one poses the most danger, in a mall?

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/firearms-images-products-422l.jpg
http://www.soksa.com/assets/publicDocs/userFiles/icy/image/ar-15.jpg
http://www.galleryofguns.com/ProdImageSm/HOWA1500ThSNmbl.jpg



A) Ruger mini-14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14)
B) AR-15 / M16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle)
C) Bolt action rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolt_action_rifle)

The American M-16/ AR-15 is probably the most dangerous in the mall, as it is widely regarded as a temperamental and delicate weapon, prone to jamming due to dirt and dust. I'd consider a more robust AK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47) in the event of a zombie outbreak, maybe coupled with the Ruger or the bolt action cause you want your accuracy for the head shot, and you don't want to be just wasting ammunition.

However, here in Canada we've managed to control the zombie problem without having to resort to these measures, possibly due to our socialized health care.



What do I win?

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 01:10 AM
In the previous pictures, the correct order of danger is the pictured Mini-14, AR-15, Bolt action rifle.

Why, might you ask?

Because the AR and Mini-14 are functionally identical, but the 'tacticlol' or 'tacticool' AR in the above picture is equipped with a long range scope, which makes it ridiculously difficult to use in short range -- like within a mall.

So, while you might believe that the scarier looking weapon is always, or even typically, more dangerous -- often times it's quite the opposite.

Attack from the 3rd dimension
11-09-2009, 02:00 AM
In the previous pictures, the correct order of danger is the pictured Mini-14, AR-15, Bolt action rifle.

Why, might you ask?

Because the AR and Mini-14 are functionally identical, but the 'tacticlol' or 'tacticool' AR in the above picture is equipped with a long range scope, which makes it ridiculously difficult to use in short range -- like within a mall.

So, while you might believe that the scarier looking weapon is always, or even typically, more dangerous -- often times it's quite the opposite.

Nice try. Didn't bite that bait a bit, I'm staying with the original answer:

The order of the identifications is the order of the images provided, not the order of dangerousnessosity. As clearly stated in the text, the most dangerous weapon - to the operator, the only person I, as the operator, would care about - is the AR, due to its reputation for unreliability. I'm tellin' ya, ya' want the AK *.

Now, what do I win? **



* for shooting zombies. We don't have much of a zombie problem, again, probably due to our excellent health care - really, you should try it. Hell, send up Glenn Beck, he's apparently got health issues, or, if you prefer, Ann Coulter, she's apparently a zombie.

**on a serious note, we gun-control oriented Canadians are very aware of the lethality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecole_Polytechnique_Massacre) of the Mini-14.

Scumpup
11-09-2009, 08:26 AM
You don't think there is a demand for plutonium, really? Or child pornography? You don't think the Al Qaeda cells lurking in the US want to get their hands on an anti-aircraft missile? The 2A arguments are lame; unfettered access to guns is either good or bad for society on it's own merit. If the SC ever decides that no restrictions whatsoever can be placed on weapons, the country will rise up in horror and amend the Constitution.

Equating the wants of terrorists and pedophiles with those of law abiding, upright citizens who support RKBA renders anything you have to say on this topic devoid of value.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 09:26 AM
Nice try. Didn't bite that bait a bit, I'm staying with the original answer: My point wasn't to bait at all, it was to make a specific point -- looks have fuck all to do with functionality.

The order of the identifications is the order of the images provided, not the order of dangerousnessosity. As clearly stated in the text, the most dangerous weapon - to the operator, the only person I, as the operator, would care about - is the AR, due to its reputation for unreliability. I'm tellin' ya, ya' want the AK *. The AR is not an unreliable platform. If it's kept clean, and maintained, it'll work just fine.

There have been a lot of improvements to the AR platform since it was first implemented.

Now, what do I win? **You can have a cookie.



* for shooting zombies. We don't have much of a zombie problem, again, probably due to our excellent health care - really, you should try it. Hell, send up Glenn Beck, he's apparently got health issues, or, if you prefer, Ann Coulter, she's apparently a zombie. You can have them both!

Scumpup
11-09-2009, 09:56 AM
And finallly, anything supported by a large enough proportion of the American public to pass a constitutional amendment is perfectly legit, even banning guns. Go for it if you can.

That's the problem, right there. The antis know that they haven't anywhere near the support to do that. Thus, the creeping incrementalism bullshit and the questionably legal tactics employed by wealthy antis like Bloomberg. This bunch has already awarded themselves the moral high ground and would place themselves above the Constitution itself as supreme law of the land.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 10:01 AM
Where in the world of rational thought do any of you get the ridiculous idea that you need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to regulate guns? Either guns are or are not regulated right now. Many of us disagree on the scope of those regulations, but regulation has been part of the law for a long long time now. That very fact demonstrates clearly that regulation is within the Constitutional powers of government today.

Sure, if you want to ban all guns, you would have to do that, but that is an extremist position that I see little support for.

As I have said here many times, if the Second Amendment allows people to have a pistol, rifle or shotgun for protection or hunting or target shooting, that is more than fine with me and I support that. What I do not support is an every increasing ramping up of weaponry making them more powerful and more deadly simply because technology is able and the gun makers can sell them.

amarone
11-09-2009, 10:21 AM
But to compare the 59 gun homicides to the total US homicides, you have to compare the total crime rate of the USA with the total crime crime rate of the UK. I don't see why, but if you do the comparisons you find that the US and UK crime rates are broadly comparable except for murder and rape, which are much higher in the US.

Why is this relevant to the point that there are many more gun murders in the US, both in total and as a proportion of the weapons used?

The USA doesn't just have more gun crime, it also has more foot, knife and fist crime. In the UK, about 30% of murders are with a knife. There are about 800 murders a year in the UK, giving a knife rate about half of that in the US, when corrected for population.

You can find a cite for feet and fist crime statistics.

Is that a product of there being more feet knives and fists in the USA? Well, yes, unless you correct for population differences...

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 10:27 AM
Where in the world of rational thought do any of you get the ridiculous idea that you need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to regulate guns? Either guns are or are not regulated right now. Many of us disagree on the scope of those regulations, but regulation has been part of the law for a long long time now. That very fact demonstrates clearly that regulation is within the Constitutional powers of government today.

Sure, if you want to ban all guns, you would have to do that, but that is an extremist position that I see little support for.

As I have said here many times, if the Second Amendment allows people to have a pistol, rifle or shotgun for protection or hunting or target shooting, that is more than fine with me and I support that. What I do not support is an every increasing ramping up of weaponry making them more powerful and more deadly simply because technology is able and the gun makers can sell them.You don't need a constitutional amendment to regulate guns, you need one to ban them, any of them.

I don't see whyBecause if you don't correct for overall crime, the entire conversation is without a baseline.

If you're 10 times more likely to be murdered in New York than Nebraska, and there are 7 times as much gun crime in New York, guns aren't really an issue.



My point, ignoring my poor comparison, is that it's not gun crime, it's overall crime that should be tackled.

amarone
11-09-2009, 10:28 AM
I think the culture has a lot to do with it as well, to be fair. And even though guns were widely available in the UK until fairly recently, there's still been a cultural idea of them as being for target shooting, hunting, or collecting, with the "shooting people" option reserved almost exclusively for Her Majesty's Armed Forces and appropriately trained members of the constabulary.
Exactly. A lot of people take what they know about the US and try apply it to the UK, but they do not know the culture or background and so draw strange conclusions. (I know you are from down under, and am not accusing you of such.) That is the main reason for the statistics and history I have been putting into this thread.

Everyone in the US knows that the UK instituted a "gun ban" and view that in terms of what it would mean to them in the culture that they know. My point is that the gun ban occurred a long time ago (mostly straight after WWII) and the UK citizenry have lived very happily in this state since. In 1997 there was a minor irrelevance (unless you were a pistol target shooter) added to gun control.

Attack from the 3rd dimension
11-09-2009, 10:29 AM
You can have them both!

On second thought, I'm gonna stick with the cookie. :)

Airman Doors, USAF
11-09-2009, 10:30 AM
What I do not support is an every increasing ramping up of weaponry making them more powerful and more deadly simply because technology is able and the gun makers can sell them.

You haven't read a word that anybody has written here that counters this absurd view that you have. As it has now become an exercise in futility, I'm done here. Banging my head against the wall until it bleeds is not my idea of fun.

Scumpup
11-09-2009, 10:38 AM
.22 Magnum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Magnum) introduced in 1959.
5.7 x 28mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.7x28mm) introduced in 1990.
5.56 x 45 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO) introduced in 1963.
7.62 X 51 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62_NATO) introduced in 1954.

Read the performance specs that are part of the articles. Now let's look at some guns that use them:

Grendel P-30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grendel_P30) introduced in 1990.
FN Five-SeveN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-seveN) introduced in 1998.
AR-15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15) introduced in 1958.
FN FAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL) introduced in 1953.

I guess that every increasing ramping up of weaponry making them more powerful and more deadly simply because technology is able and the gun makers can sell them is one more thing you pulled out of your ass due to ignorance about the very objects you wish to regulate.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 10:55 AM
You don't need a constitutional amendment to regulate guns, you need one to ban them, any of them.

Not true. As long as people have access to arms, the Second Amendment is alive and in effect. Certain guns have already been banned for use or sale to the public. The 1994 law was not overturned by the Supreme Court but simply expired due to a sunset provision.

There is no unlimited, unrestricted, unregulated right to have any damn powerful weapon you want to have just because it can be manufactured.

Scumpup
11-09-2009, 11:21 AM
You know, it's damned hard to take you seriously when it's clear you didn't read any of the articles I linked. Since you're the one moaning about weapons being too powerful, how about you just tell us where the "sensible" limit on weapon power should be placed? I breathlessly await your answer.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 11:28 AM
Why is this my obligation? I am not an expert and do not paint myself as one. This is the typical trick that is employed by supporters of the gun lobby to always make it about technical knowledge of weaponry and nothing else. You have technical knowledge because you are a gun..... fan... to be polite.

I am simply expressing the view that I suspect is held by many Americans -- we just do not want certain weapons in our society. You asking me this question is some sort of semantic trick like asking someone to define pornography.

Like I have alreadly said, you want to have a handgun that can fire six shots or a rifle for deer hunting or a shotgun for home protection, thats fine with me. I do not want anyone outside of the military or law enforcement in our society to be able to have the type of weapon that was used in the Ft. Hood murders.

Scumpup
11-09-2009, 11:32 AM
Wow.
Just...wow.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 11:37 AM
I guess you find it difficult to imagine anyone can hold beliefs outside of your own.

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 11:51 AM
... Like I have alreadly said, you want to have a handgun that can fire six shots or a rifle for deer hunting or a shotgun for home protection, thats fine with me. I do not want anyone outside of the military or law enforcement in our society to be able to have the type of weapon that was used in the Ft. Hood murders.

Why, despite the multiple posts attempting to steer you in the right direction, do you insist upon instilling magical properties to the gun used at Ft. Hood? You keep claiming that those of us on the other side are trying to "trick" you or something, so you purposely ignore readily available information?

I have more substantive conversations with my four year old. Sooner or later, she takes her fingers out of her ears and listens.

Bottom line, since you cannot be bothered to learn about what it is that you view with such disdain, I, and I'm sure others, will not be bothered to consider your points at all. You want compromise? Get a fucking clue and then come back.

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 11:53 AM
I guess you find it difficult to imagine anyone can hold beliefs outside of your own.

What is difficult to believe is that someone could hold beliefs such as yours, and assume they are right, all the while keeping their held firmly entrenched in the sand.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 11:53 AM
What is it I am suppose to get a clue about?

You say I am not listening. Why cannot you accept that I did listen, I did read, and then rejected your line of reasoning? Is that such a remote possibility that somebody could indeed listen to you but reject what you believe? Are you that egocentric and such a True Believer that you cannot comprehend that someone rejects your line of reasoning?

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 11:57 AM
What is it I am suppose to get a clue about?

You say I am not listening. Why cannot you accept that I did listen, I did read, and then rejected your line of reasoning? Is that such a remote possibility that somebody could indeed listen to you but reject what you believe? Are you that egocentric and such a True Believer that you cannot comprehend that someone rejects your line of reasoning?

I offered no reasoning other to to state that you cannot justify your position that there are "normal" guns other than by using your emotions.

I don't "believe" that the gun used at Ft Hood wasn't special. Facts are facts.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 12:12 PM
The 1994 law was not overturned by the Supreme Court but simply expired due to a sunset provision.The AWB was never ruled on by the supreme court.


By the way, the 1994 AWB didn't actually ban guns, it banned feature combinations.


Much like banning leather seats and chrome rims on the same car, while doing nothing to ban the car itself.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 12:20 PM
If a pistol that fires 20 shots in such a short time (or even thirty with slight modification) and can pierce body armor is now considered as "normal" by the gun culture, it shows just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole. I fear we have passed Alice and can only hope we are nearing the bottom.

Scumpup
11-09-2009, 12:32 PM
I guess you find it difficult to imagine anyone can hold beliefs outside of your own.

No, I find it difficult to believe you want to regulate something based on a position of total ignorance that you refuse to correct.
The 1994 ban was an example of such.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 12:48 PM
If a pistol that fires 20 shots in such a short time (or even thirty with slight modification) and can pierce body armor is now considered as "normal" by the gun culture, it shows just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole. I fear we have passed Alice and can only hope we are nearing the bottom.Most firearms can penetrate body armor.

Body armor isn't some magical force field that's super duper awesome.

So we're clear, a knife or a stick can penetrate body armor, hell, a .22lr can penetrate body armor under some circumstances. How do I know? I've seen it happen (not on a person, luckily).

pkbites
11-09-2009, 12:49 PM
If a pistol that fires 20 shots in such a short time (or even thirty with slight modification) and can pierce body armor is now considered as "normal" by the gun culture, it shows just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole. I fear we have passed Alice and can only hope we are nearing the bottom.

Are you aware that most of the common ammunition used in hunting rifles will also pierce body armor?

And a person who practiced enough could use speed loaders or moon clips on a 5 or 6 shot revolver to continually reload and cause just as much damage as he could with a semi-auto with a 20 shot magazine. The numbers game you think you're playing here is actually a form of superstition antis love to buy into.

And, perhaps I missed it here but has it been proven he was using the special ammo on that weapon that penetrates armor?

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 12:56 PM
If a pistol that fires 20 shots in such a short time (or even thirty with slight modification) and can pierce body armor is now considered as "normal" by the gun culture, it shows just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole. I fear we have passed Alice and can only hope we are nearing the bottom.

The armor piercing ammo is only available to Law Enforcement and Military, not the general public. Cite that it was used in this case? Without it, the 5.7 round is nothing special. More facts, no emotions.

The ability to shoot 20 or more rounds quickly has been established since about 1911 or more and has been "normal" for the better part on 100 years.

Not trying to trick you with logic or history or anything else, just more of those fact things.

Scumpup
11-09-2009, 01:06 PM
Check out this death-dealing killing machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_C96#M712_Schnellfeuer). Variants hold up to 40 rounds and are select fire. It can be had in a chambering, the 7.62 variant, known to be extremely penetrative. It even has a detachable shoulder stock that makes it even more deadly. How startling that this hypermodern WMD went into production in 1896.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 01:46 PM
The armor piercing ammo is only available to Law Enforcement and Military, not the general public. Cite that it was used in this case? Without it, the 5.7 round is nothing special. More facts, no emotions.

The ability to shoot 20 or more rounds quickly has been established since about 1911 or more and has been "normal" for the better part on 100 years.

Not trying to trick you with logic or history or anything else, just more of those fact things.And, if he did use the special, non civilian, ammunition, what do you think the odds of him not being able to get that gun or a similar one, when he got the banned ammunition are?

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 02:22 PM
Check out this death-dealing killing machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_C96#M712_Schnellfeuer). Variants hold up to 40 rounds and are select fire. It can be had in a chambering, the 7.62 variant, known to be extremely penetrative. It even has a detachable shoulder stock that makes it even more deadly. How startling that this hypermodern WMD went into production in 1896.

I believe that Han Solo shot Greedo with one as well.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 02:27 PM
All excellent reasons why other people will not even discuss this subject with some of you. You love to make it about technical specs ... a bunch of arms techies talking to each other in some circle jerk. The average person does not need technical expertise in sewage or the workings of the human stomach and digestive system to smell and recognize feces for what it is.

Scumpup
11-09-2009, 02:36 PM
The average person isn't qualified to draft regulations concerning sewerage and other sanitation, either, now is he?

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 02:39 PM
All excellent reasons why other people will not even discuss this subject with some of you. You love to make it about technical specs ... a bunch of arms techies talking to each other in some circle jerk. The average person does not need technical expertise in sewage or the workings of the human stomach and digestive system to smell and recognize feces for what it is.

No, but someone with a little knowledge can tell the difference between bull shit, hog shit and chicken shit. There is a difference there too. I didn't grow up on a farm, but I have learned enough to recognize your ramblings as mostly bull, with a little chicken thrown in for good measure.

YOU want to label some guns as normal. That requires a certain understanding of the specs behind the normal guns as well as the abnormal(?) guns, right? YOU asked what the difference between the shooter's gun and others. YOU want to grant the shooter's gun special powers that it doesn't have. Everyone else is trying to fight your special breed of ignorance, and YOU are not making it easy.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 02:45 PM
I am making this very easy. This is not about technical specifications. Its about people in a society making their own judgment about what weapons can be within their society and which ones go too far.

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . " And Justice Stewart had an excellent legally trained mind who could discuss and explain the most complicated legal concepts and cases with ease.

These discussions seem to end the same way. You gun lovers want folks like me to list some technical specs so you can then attempt to trap us by saying that there are other guns that we don't want to regulate that are even worse in some way. And on and on and on it goes. Of course, if you keep pushing that line of "thought" there is a simple way around even that.

Labrador Deceiver
11-09-2009, 02:45 PM
All excellent reasons why other people will not even discuss this subject with some of you. You love to make it about technical specs ... a bunch of arms techies talking to each other in some circle jerk. The average person does not need technical expertise in sewage or the workings of the human stomach and digestive system to smell and recognize feces for what it is.

In the ten years I've been reading this board, I can only think of about 9 or 10 examples of someone doing a worse job of persistently arguing his or her case. It was frustrating to read about 3 pages ago, and became funny about 2 pages ago. Now it's just sad.

SenorBeef
11-09-2009, 02:47 PM
You're saying that "some weapons go too far" without understanding how different weapons function and what their capabilities are. If you pridefully declare your ignorance on the issue and scoff at those who have knowledge, how can you reasonably evaluate which guns too far?

Is it based on what looks scariest? What has the scariest sounding buzzwords attached to it?

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 02:47 PM
Labrador
and what is even weirder is that you persist and get nowhere

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 02:50 PM
Senor Beef and others

So what if I said i do not want any handgun to shoot more than six shots without having to reload one bullet at a time. Is that enough for you?

Labrador Deceiver
11-09-2009, 02:50 PM
Labrador
and what is even weirder is that you persist and get nowhere

Did you leave out part of that sentence? I don't understand what it means.

Weirder?

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 02:58 PM
Senor Beef and others

So what if I said i do not want any handgun to shoot more than six shots without having to reload one bullet at a time. Is that enough for you?So you want every firearm that has been built since, say, 1840 to be banned?

Even revolvers (which, in this day and age, aren't 'normal' firearms -- it's abnormal to see someone at the range shooting only a revolver, typically people who shoot revolvers are hobbyists) shoot 6 to 8 shots before being reloaded, and can be reloaded the whole cylinder at once, in under one second.


Now do you see why your arguments are ridiculous? You're suggesting that because people speed at 140 miles per hour in ferraris, we should all be restricted to driving Model-T's.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 03:08 PM
from Todderbob

You're suggesting that because people speed at 140 miles per hour in ferraris, we should all be restricted to driving Model-T's.



No- not at all. Just build new cars that do not go anywhere near 140 MPH. What is complicated about that?

And I have asked but never got an answer.... so I will ask again .... why does someone outside of the police or military need with a pistol that can fire 30 shots in seconds and be able to pierce body armor? Can't the old Dirty Harry hand cannon keep you safe in your home or business without going to this length?

The underlying assumption here seems to be
a- if technology can make it
b- if gun merchants can market it
c- then I can but it

Now just imagine where that takes us fifty years from now.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 03:12 PM
why does someone outside of the police or military need with a pistol that can fire 30 shots in seconds and be able to pierce body armor? Can't the old Dirty Harry hand cannon keep you safe in your home or business without going to this length? The 'dirty harry hand cannon' can penetrate body armor better than the FN-FiveSeven that you deeply despise, and it can shoot as quickly and be reloaded, all six shots at a time, in under 1 second.


A skilled shooter can shoot as effectively with either one, and an unskilled shooter will shoot as ineffectively with either one.

The only reason you're comfortable with the dirty harry hand cannon is because it hasn't been demonized, but there is no effective difference between them! (Edit: If anything, the 'Dirty Harry hand Cannon' is a more dangerous firearm than the FN-FiveSeven!)

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 03:20 PM
Bob - and that is why I will not get into the back and forth technical specs discussion as its just a trap for the non-gun loving person who is still a citizen and wants to express their opinion on an important public matter. It will always come down to just what you explained with the Dirty Harry weapon.

Serious question...

is it your position that technology should be able to produce any type of arms it is able to produce and such products should be able to be sold to the non-military and non-police citizenery simply because such things are possible and you claim the right to have such items under the Second Amendment?

Labrador Deceiver
11-09-2009, 03:23 PM
from Todderbob





No- not at all. Just build new cars that do not go anywhere near 140 MPH. What is complicated about that?

And I have asked but never got an answer.... so I will ask again .... why does someone outside of the police or military need with a pistol that can fire 30 shots in seconds and be able to pierce body armor? Can't the old Dirty Harry hand cannon keep you safe in your home or business without going to this length?



The "old Dirty Harry hand cannon" is a more powerful weapon than the one used the other day.

The bullets used in Dirty Harry's gun are about twice the size (diameter) of the one the shooter used.

He used ammunition capable of piercing body armor. The pistol istelf wasn't special in that regard.

I hope this isn't too technical for you.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 03:28 PM
Bob - and that is why I will not get into the back and forth technical specs discussion as its just a trap for the non-gun loving person who is still a citizen and wants to express their opinion on an important public matter. It will always come down to just what you explained with the Dirty Harry weapon. If you mean that it'll come down to reality, and that you want to ban something based on arbitrary superficial characteristics rather than realistic things which actually matter, then yes, it will come down to that.

Because that line of thinking is not only dangerous, but inherently against the spirit of the Constitution of the United States and the founding principles of this nation -- that no laws should be arbitrary.


is it your position that technology should be able to produce any type of arms it is able to produce and such products should be able to be sold to the non-military and non-police citizenery simply because such things are possible and you claim the right to have such items under the Second Amendment?No, my position is that any ban, on anything, should be based in reality and fact, not in fear or emotion.

My position is that there are already restrictions on firearms, that anything larger than a .50 caliber (which, by the way, is a relatively arbitrary definition in itself) requires a 'destructive device' license, that ammunition already regulated (no 'explosive' projectiles), actions are already regulated (fully automatic and selective fire are banned)... and that any further restrictions should be justified by reality not by emotion or kneejerk reaction.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 03:32 PM
Bob - do you have such rigid scientific standards for how you cast your own vote for candidates for public office or do you allow your feelings, emotions and just general beliefs to sway who you vote for? Or is it in this one area along in which you apply such stringent rules of measurement and science?

Lumpy
11-09-2009, 03:39 PM
Serious question...

is it your position that technology should be able to produce any type of arms it is able to produce and such products should be able to be sold to the non-military and non-police citizenery simply because such things are possible and you claim the right to have such items under the Second Amendment?Well if your standard is any gun which holds more than six bullets at a time, then as others have tried to point out, you're a hundred years too late. Again, as others have tried to point out, the gun used in the Ft. Hood shootings was NOT some sort of recently invented superpistol orders of magnitude deadlier than what's been around for decades. It's not. It doesn't hold more bullets than guns that have been available for nearly a hundred years, and it doesn't shoot bullets that are deadlier than bullets that have been available for nearly a hundred years. A shooting identical to this shooting could have happened in 1915. Is that non-technical enough?

Now as to your question: if it were possible to build a nuclear-powered raygun with which someone could level half a city before being stopped, then yes it would probably be necessary to ban unauthorized possession of rayguns. (In fact, I don't see how ANYONE could ever be entrusted with control of such a weapon, military or otherwise.) But it would be necessary to amend the letter of the Second Amendment to allow this.

Labrador Deceiver
11-09-2009, 03:40 PM
Bob - do you have such rigid scientific standards for how you cast your own vote for candidates for public office or do you allow your feelings, emotions and just general beliefs to sway who you vote for? Or is it in this one area along in which you apply such stringent rules of measurement and science?

What in the holy hell are you talking about? Nobody is placing strict rules of measurement on anything. He's talking about guns that fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger, vs. guns that fire a continuous stream. He's talking about how big the bullet is. He's talking about bullets that explode vs. bullets that do not explode.

You sound like my mother attempting to talk about technology in general. She sounds foolish when she likens a word processor to the internet. Go out and educate yourself on the subject. It won't take longer than 20 or 30 minutes. Nobody here is throwing highly technical terms at you.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 03:47 PM
Labrador

allow me to explain my comment...... you guys want this all to be about technological specs so you can point out the hypocritical flaws in banning one weapon while allowing others. That is painfully obvious. You want this to be about science and hard and cold facts. While that has a role to play in the discussion, citizens make up their mind all the time about issues and candidates based on all sort of things including their own personal set of beliefs, their own ethics, and how they simply feel about things before them. You do that, i do that, we all do that. I am a citizen and I vote. I am politically active. I have a right to have an opinion about guns even though you may know 1,000 times more than I do about the technical aspects. And I do not think I am alone in that.

The founding fathers gave us the right to keep and bear arms in 1791 with the Second Amendment. Find the outdated and simple weapons they said you could have and place them on one end of the continuum. Now place the glorious advances of weapons technology on the other end of the continuum. There is a wide gulf dividing those two extremes. I think common sense and the greater good of society indicates that there is some area in between those two extremes that you can still bear arms and protect yourself without turning everybody into an armed version of Robocop.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 03:49 PM
Bob - do you have such rigid scientific standards for how you cast your own vote for candidates for public office or do you allow your feelings, emotions and just general beliefs to sway who you vote for? I use rigid, although not scientific, standards to determine who I vote for as it comes to public office.

First, I examine their history, and determine whether or not they've delivered on their campaign promises in the past -- if they haven't (depending on why they haven't), I categorize them as a liar and do not proceed to examine their platform any further.

However, if they have delivered on their promises in the past, in part or in whole, I examine their history of corruption (accused and convicted), typically including their campaign financing, and determine whether they're trustworthy or not.

If they're still considered trust worthy, I look at their platform and determine whether or not I think they can deliver on that. If they can, and I agree with their platform, they'll get my vote.

If no candidates are sufficiently qualified in my opinion (as so few often are), I vote for the 'lesser of two evils,' the one who I believe can do the best. But it's not a matter of feeling, it's a matter of carefully weighed advantages and disadvantages.

Just like purchasing a house or investing in the stock market, pros and cons must be carefully weighed. Or are you suggesting we should govern a nation based on what "feels good"? Because from what I hear, crack "feels good."

Or is it in this one area along in which you apply such stringent rules of measurement and science?Nope, I apply stringent rules of measurement and science to just about every part of my life.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 03:52 PM
The founding fathers gave us the right to keep and bear arms in 1791 with the Second Amendment.You do realize that the constitution doesn't give you anything, right?

It recognizes pre-existing rights which are inherent in the individuals. The Bill of Rights doesn't give you the right to free speech, you have the right to free speech, whether it's in the Constitution or not, the Constitution only recognizes that right, specifically, and implies many others.


How do you think abortion was ruled legal by the Supreme Court? It's not spelled out in the Constitution, but it's recognized because the Constitution isn't a group of rights that you've been given, it's a recognition of rights that are already yours!

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 03:55 PM
We differ about that. If you live in a nation and the government of that nation does not recognize that you have a particular right, you don't have squat. That may not agree with philosophers pontificating about natural rights, but that is the way it is in the real cold world.

bob - if you go through all that in casting your vote or in deciding your postion on any issue, you are a man above men. You are also a rare version of a unfeeling Mister Spock from STAR TREK. So there is an upside and a downside.

Scumpup
11-09-2009, 03:55 PM
Firearms are a mature technology. The guns we use today work exactly the same way guns from 50 or 75 or 100 years ago worked. The only differences are in manufacturing techniques and materials. 50 years from now, quite likely that will still be the case.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 03:59 PM
We differ about that. If you live in a nation and the government of that nation does not recognize that you have a particular right, you don't have squat. That may not agree with philosophers pontificating about natural rights, but that is the way it is in the real cold world.Which is why more and more Unions, confederations, federations, etc are instituting things like the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) and the European Court of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights), to force their members to recognize certain rights that all humans have. It's specifically spelled out that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant you those rights, but recognizes them.

Some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights) are more effective than others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Court_of_Human_Rights).

Labrador Deceiver
11-09-2009, 04:01 PM
Labrador

allow me to explain my comment...... you guys want this all to be about technological specs so you can point out the hypocritical flaws in banning one weapon while allowing others. That is painfully obvious.

Bullshit. We're trying to point out to you that gun technology hasn't changed much in 100 years. You keep building strawmen about technical specs & super guns that are hyper-lethal. It's all horseshit, and we're trying to get that through to you. Most of us have given up, because you haven't demonstrated the ability to understand how a pencil works, much less a firearm.

Here's a tip: No handgun legal in the US will ever be much bigger than good ole Dirty Harry's gun. No legal gun will ever be able to shoot faster than the time it takes to pull the trigger. Handgun ammunition designed to explode will continue to be illegal.

In short, you're wrong. About everything you've said. Technology isn't producing some kind of space-aged gun that is capable of ultra-efficient killing.

ps: I know fuck all about technical aspects of guns. I look like such a newb when I have a pistol in my hand that it would make you laugh out loud.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 04:07 PM
Todederbob

okay - but so what? If you live in a nation, any nation, and you claim you have some "natural right" but the legitimate government of that nation does not recognize that right, you have nothing. There are no "natural rights" to anything. There is only the reality that you have to live in. Natural rights sure did not do millions of slaves any good for hundreds of years now did they?

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 04:16 PM
Todederbob

okay - but so what? If you live in a nation, any nation, and you claim you have some "natural right" but the legitimate government of that nation does not recognize that right, you have nothing. There are no "natural rights" to anything. There is only the reality that you have to live in. Natural rights sure did not do millions of slaves any good for hundreds of years now did they?Unfortunately not, and the Dread Scott case clearly shows that even the Supreme Court, and the Government in general is fallible.

However, if those slaves had firearms.... :smack: Sorry, couldn't resist.

It did, however, do quite a lot of good for that same race of people in the Brown v. Board of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) (as well as a number of later decisions).

elucidator
11-09-2009, 04:26 PM
I fear, Hay, that you are engaged in a futile but noble endeavor. On this issue, I have surrendered. It simply cannot be done.

As a practical fact, we are awash in handguns, they are everywhere. Open a page in the newspaper that shows movie ads, have you ever....ever!...seen such a page without somebody brandishing a handgun?

The damned things don't rot. It takes years and years for them to wear out, even if frequently used, God forbid. They won't simply "go away". And the political will to ban them is utterly beyond our reach, even the suggestion that we consider such a thing sends a significant portion of our population into hysterical shit-fits. We want to rid our country of these things, but we want it in a more or less luke warm fashion, we are opposed with a zeal that borders on the religious, God alone knows why.

With grave reluctance, I say forget it. Save your energy, eloquence and zeal on issues that can be resolved. On this one, the slow painful way....gradually changing our people and our values...is the only way. We have to create a public that simply doesn't want them, never mind not allowing them.

With grave reluctance, my position is: Fuck it, keep the goddam things if they mean that much to you, muzzle tov, much good may it do you. Your efforts are noble, worthy, but futile. I would that I were wrong, but I'm a pessimist, and I'm not wrong often enough.

Labrador Deceiver
11-09-2009, 04:33 PM
elucidator, you aren't arguing the same thing. Haymarket wants to meet in the middle, not understanding that we're probably just shy of the middle already. If you want to argue for an outright gun ban, then I can at least understand that position.

elucidator
11-09-2009, 04:37 PM
Does it really matter how moderate we offer to be? Have we ever been met with compromise?

pkbites
11-09-2009, 04:41 PM
If all semi-autos magically disappeared the antis would be whining about 6 shot revolvers. Then, if the 6 shot revolvers magically disappeared they would be whining about 5 shot snubbie revolvers. Then, when they magically disappeared the antis would whine about double barrel shotguns, and then single shot rifles. This tale the OP tells about some guns being ok is a lie. The antis don't like any guns and routinely attack the flavor of the day. Had the perp used a 5 shot snubbie the whine would be about how concealable they are. If someone chooses not to conceal but open carry the antis whine how OC frightens people. And so on and so on.

Arguing with an anti is like arguing with a housecat. They don't have the intellect to understand what you're saying and they couldn't care less.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 04:42 PM
And the political will to ban them is utterly beyond our reach, even the suggestion that we consider such a thing sends a significant portion of our population into hysterical shit-fits. We want to rid our country of these things, but we want it in a more or less luke warm fashion, we are opposed with a zeal that borders on the religious, God alone knows why.You're opposed with such zeal because 'gun grabbers' (as you're affectionately known, you don't want to hear what you're called behind closed doors :p) tend to distort facts (or outright lie), use emotional language, say that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a murder, imply or outright states that we like seeing people die needlessly, use underhanded tactics to undermine the a constitutional amendment and don't understand why that's a bad thing. If you want to ban certain firearms, get the votes for an amendment. Don't try to do it through 'regulation.' That's a sneaky and underhanded tactic that circumvents the spirit of the constitution.

Keep in mind, I don't refer to all 'gun grabbers' that way, I'm sure there are many that want to ban guns despite the fact that banning them hasn't shown a benefit to society (why, on the other hand, I don't know), or they genuinely believe banning them will benefit society (despite no evidence to back that up), and want to do it the legal and approved way -- through a constitutional amendment.

However, most, in fact, almost all, want to skip the necessary majority in favor of expedience and convenience. That's all well and good, except for the fact that some of us (read: most) want the Constitution intact, and don't like the idea of a round-about circumvention of the document.

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 04:43 PM
Does it really matter how moderate we offer to be? Have we ever been met with compromise?

Plenty, since around 1934.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 04:45 PM
If all semi-autos magically disappeared the antis would be whining about 6 shot revolvers. Then, if the 6 shot revolvers magically disappeared they would be whining about 5 shot snubbie revolvers. Then, when they magically disappeared the antis would whine about double barrel shotguns, and then single shot rifles. This tale the OP tells about some guns being ok is a lie. The antis don't like any guns and routinely attack the flavor of the day. Had the perp used a 5 shot snubbie the whine would be about how concealable they are. If someone chooses not to conceal but open carry the antis whine how OC frightens people. And so on and so on.

Arguing with an anti is like arguing with a housecat. They don't have the intellect to understand what you're saying and they couldn't care less.It's a shame, in fact, to note that legal Selective Fire Firearms haven't been used in a crime since the institution of the registry in the 1930's....

... and they were banned anyway.





Gun registries, which are touted as "Alternatives to bans" tend to lead to Gun Bans, even when 0 (that is, none, zip, zlich, nadda, zero) guns in the registry are used in crimes for over 60 years. Same thing happened with "Assault Weapons" in California.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 04:47 PM
Banning any particular firearm does not take away your right to own weapons anymore than a law preventing your from being intimate with ten year olds prevents you from having sex. Nobody needs any amendment to regulate firearms or even ban some of them. You still have more than enough to chose from and your right can be satisfied.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 04:53 PM
Banning any particular firearm does not take away your right to own weapons anymore than a law preventing your from being intimate with ten year olds prevents you from having sex. Nobody needs any amendment to regulate firearms or even ban some of them. You still have more than enough to chose from and your right can be satisfied.
Infringe
-verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.



The 2nd Amendment doesn't say you have a right to some firearms, it says the right to arms shall not be infringed. Infringed, meaning 'transgressed,' or 'stepped upon,' which means.... you guesssssssssssed it.....

SenorBeef
11-09-2009, 04:54 PM
Does it really matter how moderate we offer to be? Have we ever been met with compromise?

Are you kidding? Yes, all the time. There are massive amounts of restrictions on guns on the books. Gun control is almost entirely moving in one direction - the only exception to this trend is the widespread adoption of concealed carry policies. The '34 NFA, '68 GCA, '94 AWB (sunsetted, not repealed), other measures of the 94 omnibus bill, etc. are major "compromises" that aren't really compromises because they take without giving.

If you have a state of freedom, and there comes along a group that intends to restrict that freedom, and you continually "compromise" with them, further each time, you've gradually given up your freedoms.

Let's say that absolute freedom has a value of 100 and total control has a value of 0. So you decide to compromise and meet in the middle, now you're down from 100 to 50. And then they want another round of compromises, so you meet in the middle - between the statuos quo (50) and their goal (0), and now you're at 25. You compromise in the middle again and now you're at 12.5. You've now "compromised" away 87.5%.

Scumpup
11-09-2009, 05:08 PM
Compromise, in dealing with antis, generally means we give something up forever so that they can feel good for a little while. Repeat as often as necessary until we have nothing.

Labrador Deceiver
11-09-2009, 05:10 PM
Does it really matter how moderate we offer to be? Have we ever been met with compromise?

Is this a serious question?

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 05:25 PM
Oh Bob - you really want to go back and forth about the exact language in the Second Amendment?

Maybe you can tell us what happened at your last formal militia meeting then?

There is no such thing as an absolute right without limits or borders. It just does not exist. Even the basic right to life can be legally taken away. The right to your children can be taken away.

The level of paranoia here is scary.

SenorBeef
11-09-2009, 05:30 PM
The level of paranoia here is scary.

When we have people like you trying to draw up the laws we should be scared.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 05:34 PM
Cling to your fears and paranoia then..... it seems to comfort you along with your friends Smith & Wesson.

I don't think people here would know true compromise if it hit you square upon the head. Tell me, what compromise did the victims at Ft. Hood make with you. What about the Columbine victims... what was their compromise with you folks? And the Virginia Tech victims... what did thy compromise with you folks so you can keep your precious weapons of death?

SenorBeef
11-09-2009, 05:41 PM
Your questions are nonsensical. You are not being logical now, but rather just trying to appeal to emotion. This has been your tact all along - you are unwilling to discuss actual factual details but rather repeatedly appeal to emotion while claiming only to want to discuss a reasonable middle ground, when your very OP accused us of celebrating murder. You have not been nor are you being reasonable.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 05:46 PM
I am not being reasonable!?!?!?!?

It was somebody on your side who cried tears claiming they were already halfway toward compromise.
That position is so far beyond what is reasonable that it is downright scary that anyone could believe it.

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 05:47 PM
Cling to your fears and paranoia then..... it seems to comfort you along with your friends Smith & Wesson.

I don't think people here would know true compromise if it hit you square upon the head. Tell me, what compromise did the victims at Ft. Hood make with you. What about the Columbine victims... what was their compromise with you folks? And the Virginia Tech victims... what did thy compromise with you folks so you can keep your precious weapons of death?

Typical argument of the antigun crowd. Wrap the debate up in emotions and strawmen because in the end that's all you have. How many kids in China suffered on an assembly line you could have your computer? How many animals were killed during the harvest of the vegetables that you will eat for dinner?

Labrador Deceiver
11-09-2009, 05:47 PM
Cling to your fears and paranoia then..... it seems to comfort you along with your friends Smith & Wesson.

I don't think people here would know true compromise if it hit you square upon the head. Tell me, what compromise did the victims at Ft. Hood make with you. What about the Columbine victims... what was their compromise with you folks? And the Virginia Tech victims... what
did thy compromise with you folks so you can keep your precious weapons of death?

What a joke. How do you know about our ability to compromise when your astounding (and I mean astounding) ignorance prevents you from even knowing what compromise to seek?

From what I can tell, you wouldn't know a pistol is it hit you square in the face.

ExTank
11-09-2009, 05:49 PM
With grave reluctance, my position is: Fuck it, keep the goddam things if they mean that much to you, muzzle tov, much good may it do you. Your efforts are noble, worthy, but futile. I would that I were wrong, but I'm a pessimist, and I'm not wrong often enough.

Why thank you very much for deigning to allow me to continue to practice my individual Constitutional rights, even back when certain folks here said it wasn't an individual right.

His efforts are base, unworthy, uninformed, and futile.

And the whole "muzzle tov" line was lame the first time you used it; it ain't getting any more witty with repitition.

But keep telling yourself you're not wrong often enough; that did bring a brief flicker of an almost-smile to my face.

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 05:50 PM
I am not being reasonable!?!?!?!?

It was somebody on your side who cried tears claiming they were already halfway toward compromise.
That position is so far beyond what is reasonable that it is downright scary that anyone could believe it.

There are plenty of things that gun owners have given up in the name of compromise. Of course I wouldn't expect you to understand or accept that fact. Yet, for all of our compromise, we are asked to give up more, even though all that we have given up has had exactly no affect on crime or prevention of same. If that is what I have to look forward to with even more compromise, erosion of my rights for your emotional well being, no thanks.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 05:57 PM
such as?????

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 06:13 PM
I don't think people here would know true compromise if it hit you square upon the head. Tell me, what compromise did the victims at Ft. Hood make with you. What about the Columbine victims... what was their compromise with you folks? And the Virginia Tech victims... what did thy compromise with you folks so you can keep your precious weapons of death?We did compromise.

We let antigun disallow military carry on army bases (see how well that worked, since the Ft. Hood killer wasn't allowed to carry a.... wait a minute! :smack: ), we don't let teachers or licensed individuals carry on school grounds....

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 06:14 PM
such as?????3 day, 7 day, etc waiting periods, limits of x amount of firearms within a 30 day period. De facto gun registration in the form of ATF microfilming and digital spreadsheeting, need I go on?

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 06:28 PM
how does that compromise what gun you ended up with anyways?

Clothahump
11-09-2009, 06:33 PM
It is about time that we established something like a Hall of Fame to honor true American heroes of the US Constitution. Just like the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York, we need a building to house an ongoing memorial to the men and women who have sacrificed and struggled to make the Constitution a reality in our lives. One room should be set aside for the heroes of the Second Amendment, sometimes called the Right To Bear Arms.

As the initial nominees for such an honor I suggest we induct all thirteen of the people at Ft. Hood, Texas who paid the ultimate price so that the rest of us can have legal and easy access to obtain weapons capable of shooting over forty people in minutes. We could also go back to other such mass shootings such as Columbine High School from 1999 in which 13 people were gunned down dead and include those people who also paid the ultimate price for the rest of our rights to own powerful weapons of death. Of course, we should also include the 32 dead who paid for our freedom at the 2007 Viriginia Tech murders as well. Then there were the Xerox murders in Hawaii in 1999 where seven were slain ... bet you forget about that one .... see why we need this place? And another recently from the front page but now forgotten would be the eleven who died in Geneva County earlier this very year.
You almost got it right.

The honor, however, would be directed to the idiots who deny others their Constitutional right to bear arms because they are fwightened by the big, scawy guns. Take Virginia Tech, for example. If someone there had been legally armed and carrying, the result would have been vastly different. Same for the Killeen shootings at the Luby's Cafeteria in 1991.

And BTW - the recent shooting at Ft. Hood was carried out with a weapon issued to the shooter by the army he was supposedly serving in. I stand to be corrected on that, but I have not heard anything to the contrary.

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 06:35 PM
such as?????

NFA Act 1934
GCA Act 1968
FOPA 1986
AW BAN 1994

All of these are at the Federal level. This does not even scratch the surface of doings at the state and city level.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 06:39 PM
And BTW - the recent shooting at Ft. Hood was carried out with a weapon issued to the shooter by the army he was supposedly serving in. I stand to be corrected on that, but I have not heard anything to the contrary.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iU2FSOlnxfzhAwbNibWTIhohwLVQD9BQ9A2G3

He purchased the firearm legally, in a gun store.

http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=9012995

Both of them, one of them was one of those 'revolver' guns, you know, the ones that aren't as dangerous (But actually have more ballistic power).

Lumpy
11-09-2009, 06:41 PM
Oh Bob - you really want to go back and forth about the exact language in the Second Amendment?

Maybe you can tell us what happened at your last formal militia meeting then?

There is no such thing as an absolute right without limits or borders. It just does not exist. Even the basic right to life can be legally taken away. The right to your children can be taken away.

The level of paranoia here is scary.Two points: The militia is simply the people, the mass of the populace, armed with their own privately held weapons. And yes if you want me to cite chapter and verse on why that interpretation is almost certainly the correct one, I'd be happy to devote a thread to it. But for now let's just say that the "collective" interpretation has been widely discredited, except for gun banners who want an excuse to nullify the 2nd. As I believe I mentioned earlier, none of the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are held to be limitless. But neither does that mean that they can be dismissed for trivial reasons. The right of public assembly for example, does not mean that police can't order an unruly crowd to disperse, or even that cities can't require parade permits for public demonstrations. But it does mean that the right of assembly is a right, not a privilege the government can bestow or withold at will. It certainly does mean that the government can't decide that any unauthorized gathering of more than five people can by statute be declared a riot, no matter how convenient that would be for law enforcers.

Sanity Challenged
11-09-2009, 06:43 PM
I don't think people here would know true compromise if it hit you square upon the head.

OK, show me what a compromise is. Us pro-gunners will give up the weapon used in the Ft. Hood shooting. You can outright ban it. What are you offering us in exchange?

Tell me, what compromise did the victims at Ft. Hood make with you. What about the Columbine victims... what was their compromise with you folks? And the Virginia Tech victims... what did thy compromise with you folks so you can keep your precious weapons of death?

You presume to know where each and every victim in each of those tragedies felt about gun control? Or are you just cold enough that you figure you might as well claim them for your side, 'cause they can't very well speak up to disagree with you?

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 07:08 PM
from Lumpy

The militia is simply the people, the mass of the populace, armed with their own privately held weapons.

If that is the way it was in 1789, that is clearly NOT the way it is today. But if we allow you the convenience of defining reality as it was in 1789, then I will take the same convenience. ARMS will be defined by the reality of 1789 as well. So you and every other person has the right to the same weaponry that the militia had in 1789 when you want to use your definition of MILITIA.

from Wikipedia

Etymology

The term "militia" is derived from Latin roots:
miles /miːles/ : soldier[4]
-itia /iːtia/ : a state, activity, quality or condition of being[5][6]
militia /mil:iːtia/: Military service[4]
In English, the word "militia" dates to 1590 when it was recorded in a book by Sir John Smythe, Certain Discourses Military with the meanings: a military force; a body of soldiers and military affairs; a body of military discipline[7]

Thank you for opening that door.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 07:14 PM
sanity challenged

You presume to know where each and every victim in each of those tragedies felt about gun control? Or are you just cold enough that you figure you might as well claim them for your side, 'cause they can't very well speak up to disagree with you?

I have a very strong suspicion that none of them would be willing to give up their life as they did last week so that somebody else can walk into a gun shop and buy such a weapon. I think that is a great deal to ask of anybody.

But like I have said, honor them. They paid the ultimate price so people like Chuck Heston and Wayne La Pierre and the rest of you don't have to pay any price at all. Such a deal.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 07:26 PM
from Wikipedia



Thank you for opening that door.No, my friend, thank you for opening that door.

From wikipedia:

* The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 07:29 PM
that is certainly how it was back in 1789. So you want to use the definition of MILITIA as it was in 1789 and you want to use the definition of ARMS as it exists in 2009. Hypocrisy raises it ugly head. Lets try to avoid that please.

Sanity Challenged
11-09-2009, 07:31 PM
Not surprising that you ignored the first question. I don't expect you're prepared to actually give up any ground, ie, compromise.

sanity challenged

I have a very strong suspicion that none of them would be willing to give up their life as they did last week so that somebody else can walk into a gun shop and buy such a weapon. I think that is a great deal to ask of anybody.

But like I have said, honor them. They paid the ultimate price so people like Chuck Heston and Wayne La Pierre and the rest of you don't have to pay any price at all. Such a deal.

Honor them, indeed, by treating them as human beings who had their own thoughts and convictions, rather than merely just defining them as statistics to support your cause. A very large portion of the population is willing to live with the risks necessary to protect our freedom to bear arms. No doubt a good portion of the victims in these tragedies were among them.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 07:37 PM
that is certainly how it was back in 1789. So you want to use the definition of MILITIA as it was in 1789 and you want to use the definition of ARMS as it exists in 2009. Hypocrisy raises it ugly head. Lets try to avoid that please.Except wikipedia wasn't around in 1789, that's todays definition.

Also, you can look up the word in the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə)
n.

1.
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.



mi⋅li⋅tia
  /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
Use militia in a Sentence
See web results for militia
See images of militia
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.



Unless you're saying women shouldn't be allowed to have firearms? Those aren't ancient definitions of the word, they're the ones that are printed in Merriam Websters English Dictionary, 2009 (well, not those, verbatum, but you get the idea)

ETA:

Screw it, we'll include Websters definition:

1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service


So, now that every reasonable dictionary has disproven your idea that somehow the term 'militia' has drastically changed over the years, and wikipedia has as well, why don't we move on?


But, even if it didn't, the amendment doesn't specify that you have to be enrolled in a militia to bear arms, it says that Militias are necessary to ensure free states, and that because of this, the peoples right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

See, nowhere in there does it say "But you can't have a gun if you're not in the militia!"

Lumpy
11-09-2009, 07:41 PM
that is certainly how it was back in 1789. So you want to use the definition of MILITIA as it was in 1789 and you want to use the definition of ARMS as it exists in 2009. Hypocrisy raises it ugly head. Lets try to avoid that please.We are using the 1789 definition of "arms"; as in, "weapons".

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 07:42 PM
And we do not have anything like that today in American society. Such an entity has been long ago replaced by paid professionals who perform those functions as a job. The concept of militia as it was written and used in the Bill of Rights has not existed for a long long time.

Again, you want the concept as it existed in 1789 for MILITIA but you want the modern development of ARMS as it is in 2009.

A bit of intellectual consistency would be nice.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 07:43 PM
from Lumpy

We are using the 1789 definition of "arms"; as in, "weapons".

And I agree that if you are in the militia you are entitled to the weapons of 1789 just like the Founding Fathers wanted you to have.

pkbites
11-09-2009, 07:45 PM
I have a very strong suspicion that none of them would be willing to give up their life as they did last week so that somebody else can walk into a gun shop and buy such a weapon.


I am. I have informed my family and friends on multiple occasions that I find the benefit of being able to own the arms of my choice greatly outweighs the risk that someone could use the same kind of arms to kill me. I believe in this so much that all versions of my will have had the following clause in them:

I specifically instruct that my personal representative, hereinafter named, that neither my name, likeness, cause of death, nor any of my estate proceeds shall be used to advanced any political causes intended to limit firearm ownership. My personal representative is specifically instructed to take legal action against any individual(s) or organizations which use or attempt to use my name, likeness, cause of death, or estate proceeds to advance a cause which would limit in any way, shape, or form, the legal possession of firearms by American citizens.

This is verbatim from my current will.
I've had this clause in all my wills for over 25 years now. If I change my mind, I'll take it out. So I don't need some clueless dolt deciding what my position is after I'm dead!

Scumpup
11-09-2009, 07:53 PM
Your inane nattering about the arms of the 18th century tells me you know as little about them as you do more modern weapons. You are almost certainly picturing them as cartoonish muskets with a bell-shaped muzzle like something from a children's Thanksgiving pageant.
Tell me, do you believe a muzzle loading weapon from the period is less lethal than a modern gun?

Lumpy
11-09-2009, 08:02 PM
And I agree that if you are in the militia you are entitled to the weapons of 1789 just like the Founding Fathers wanted you to have.In which case, you doubtless agree that if you want to publish something, you are entitled to a single-sheet screw press just like the Founding Fathers wanted you to have.

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 08:41 PM
OK, show me what a compromise is. Us pro-gunners will give up the weapon used in the Ft. Hood shooting. You can outright ban it. What are you offering us in exchange?

Haymarket, I'd really like to see your answer to this. Please show us a good faith compromise.

SenorBeef
11-09-2009, 08:50 PM
I have an idea of a compromise. We ban all guns, but if you turn them in within a week you won't be prosecuted. Give a little, take a little.

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 08:58 PM
I am. I have informed my family and friends on multiple occasions that I find the benefit of being able to own the arms of my choice greatly outweighs the risk that someone could use the same kind of arms to kill me. I believe in this so much that all versions of my will have had the following clause in them:

I specifically instruct that my personal representative, hereinafter named, that neither my name, likeness, cause of death, nor any of my estate proceeds shall be used to advanced any political causes intended to limit firearm ownership. My personal representative is specifically instructed to take legal action against any individual(s) or organizations which use or attempt to use my name, likeness, cause of death, or estate proceeds to advance a cause which would limit in any way, shape, or form, the legal possession of firearms by American citizens.

This is verbatim from my current will.
I've had this clause in all my wills for over 25 years now. If I change my mind, I'll take it out. So I don't need some clueless dolt deciding what my position is after I'm dead!I might add that to mine, thanks for the idea. Just so people like Haymarket can't misconstrue my opinions; I might write a manifesto to include my will just for this, detailing my opinion on everything.
And I agree that if you are in the militia you are entitled to the weapons of 1789 just like the Founding Fathers wanted you to have.We are in a militia.

I'm an able bodied male -- and according to dictionary dot com, Merriam-Websters and Wikipedia, that's the definition!

SenorBeef
11-09-2009, 09:55 PM
Well - aside from squabbling over dictionary definitions, there's federal code that dictates what legally encompasses the militia in the US, and it basically includes able bodied men between 18 and 45, IIRC. Anyone have the code handy?

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 10:04 PM
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html)

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

haymarketmartyr
11-09-2009, 10:11 PM
The so called unorganized militia is a wetdream fantasy of the deluded mind of the person hopelessly out of step with the world they live in. We have not had a militia like that in a very long time. Of course, you believe whatever helps you get through the night without having to pull the covers over your head overcome by paranoia.

Lumpy
11-09-2009, 10:23 PM
The so called unorganized militia is a wetdream fantasy of the deluded mind of the person hopelessly out of step with the world they live in. We have not had a militia like that in a very long time. Of course, you believe whatever helps you get through the night without having to pull the covers over your head overcome by paranoia.:confused:
If you were responding to JXJohns's post, were you perhaps unaware that he was citing federal statutes? "Unorganized militia" is the federal government's phrase.

elucidator
11-09-2009, 10:30 PM
Why thank you very much for deigning to allow me to continue to practice my individual Constitutional rights, even back when certain folks here said it wasn't an individual right....
I didn't give you a moment's thought, your gratitude is misplaced.

...His efforts are base, unworthy, uninformed, and futile....
They almost certainly are futile, in the sense that legal mechanisms simply cannot work. We will have to change ourselves and each other, change our people to the point where someone who thinks that their personal possession of a firearm is a Big Hairy Ass Deal will be regarded with bemused tolerance as we back away slowly and look for an exit. The long way, the hard way, the agonizingly slow way...the only way.

..And the whole "muzzle tov" line was lame the first time you used it; it ain't getting any more witty with repitition....
If you find me tiresome, you can stop reading. I'll get over it. Sure, it will be hard at first, but I think I can find the strength to go on....

...But keep telling yourself you're not wrong often enough; that did bring a brief flicker of an almost-smile to my face.
Thats whats known in these climes as a "Norwegian grin".

Todderbob
11-09-2009, 10:31 PM
The so called unorganized militia is a wetdream fantasy of the deluded mind of the person hopelessly out of step with the world they live in. We have not had a militia like that in a very long time. Of course, you believe whatever helps you get through the night without having to pull the covers over your head overcome by paranoia.Damn the Federal Government and their wetdream deluded minds!

JXJohns
11-09-2009, 10:40 PM
The so called unorganized militia is a wetdream fantasy of the deluded mind of the person hopelessly out of step with the world they live in. We have not had a militia like that in a very long time. Of course, you believe whatever helps you get through the night without having to pull the covers over your head overcome by paranoia.

Those are Federal statutes. They define exactly, according the Feds, what a militia is or is not. Not a wet dream by any means. Which other parts of the US Code do you summarily dismiss as a wet dream?

Martini Enfield
11-09-2009, 11:50 PM
haymarket, you do know there are lots of people out there who own guns for sporting or historic reasons and not because they're paranoid, right?

It's been well and truly established that a shooting like the one at Ft. Hood could have happened any time since the late 1830s, and it's further been established that firearm design hasn't changed much since the end of WWII, except for comparatively minor things like materials.

haymarketmartyr
11-10-2009, 07:16 AM
There are plenty of laws which are on the books which are not extended or enforced beyond their existence on the printed page. This is one of them. In the real world of the USA, there is no unorganized militia.

haymarketmartyr
11-10-2009, 07:26 AM
In law, desuetude (from the Latin word desuetudo: outdated, no longer custom) is a doctrine that causes statutes, similar legislation or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time. It is what happens to laws that are not repealed when they become obsolete. It is the legal doctrine that long and continued non-use of a law renders it invalid, at least in the sense that courts will no longer tolerate punishing its transgressors.

Lumpy
11-10-2009, 08:44 AM
In the real world of the USA, there is no unorganized militia.Unless you're drafted, in which case you instantly become a citizen-soldier fully qualified to be summoned to federal military service. I've started a whole other thread about this.

JXJohns
11-10-2009, 09:15 AM
There are plenty of laws which are on the books which are not extended or enforced beyond their existence on the printed page. This is one of them. In the real world of the USA, there is no unorganized militia.

The whole point of the unorganized militia is that it is what it is as defined by US code. No uniforms, ranks, meetings or anything else. As such, it most certainly exists and here's the capper, if you are a man between 17 and 45, you are a full fledged member too.

Here is a good place to start... (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=us+unorganized+militia)

haymarketmartyr
11-10-2009, 09:40 AM
JXJohns
thank you for the link. I read it. According to what it says

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

So if you are using this language to justify the militia as what is referred to in the Second Amendment, then the right to bear arms would only apply to males, between 17 and 45 who are able-bodied (which I guess means able to pass a military physical) and female citizens in the National Guard. By your own standard, you are severely limiting the right to bear arms if you cling to this fiction.

And even then it changes nothing about the language saying it should be "well regulated".

But again, you can write a law which repeals gravity but a written law means little when reality and custom and practice dictate otherwise. That is what is meant by the legal term DESEUTUDE.

JXJohns
11-10-2009, 09:58 AM
JXJohns
thank you for the link. I read it. According to what it says



So if you are using this language to justify the militia as what is referred to in the Second Amendment, then the right to bear arms would only apply to males, between 17 and 45 who are able-bodied (which I guess means able to pass a military physical) and female citizens in the National Guard. By your own standard, you are severely limiting the right to bear arms if you cling to this fiction.

I'm not. I am just detailing yet another area where you are wrong, but because you have an opinion, that is all that matters to you.

And even then it changes nothing about the language saying it should be "well regulated".
No it doesn't say it should be regulated. It states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. No more detail than that.

All I did was post a link for Senor Beef. You had to stick your nose into it an make a claim that the unorganized militia does not exist, when in fact, it clearly does. I never linked membership with gun ownership.

haymarketmartyr
11-10-2009, 10:11 AM
Any written language in law cannot change something which is not in existence into something which is in existence just because there are now words on the page. Not one single thing has been done to implement this language or turn it into reality. It is simply a legal fiction that is outdated by actual real custom and practice and the realities of American life.

There is no unorganized militia no matter how many laws say otherwise. A law can repeal gravity - on paper - but have no effect in real life. So it is with the fiction of an organized militia. In point of fact, one could argue that the very term is an oxymoron in and of itself.

SenorBeef
11-10-2009, 10:23 AM
We've had this argument in detail dozens of times before, but the quick answer is that it is not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it is the right of the people. The militia clause is an explanatory clause rather than the operative clause (hopefully I got those terms right).

And "well-regulated" in the parlance of the time meant "well-functioning" (a clockmaker would regulate a clock to ensure it kept proper time, for example) more than "thoroughly governed by regulation".

You're new here, so you don't realize this has all been hashed out in quite a bit more detail than this thread contains. You can't search using the board search feature, so I will link you to some old gun control threads which examine the issue. You can also search this site with google by entering "[search term] site:boards.straightdope.com" ... for example "second amendment site:boards.straightdope.com"

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=468172
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=48428
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=197215
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=179028
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=118415
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=118941
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=333826
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=139961
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=179347
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304238
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=458739
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=261146
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=251063
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=237976
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=162252

That list isn't comprehensive, and I know I'm missing some quality threads because I didn't quite hit the right search terms, but if you're interested in learning about the issue that will give you a lot to think about.

Labrador Deceiver
11-10-2009, 11:00 AM
You're new here, so you don't realize this has all been hashed out in quite a bit more detail than this thread contains. You can't search using the board search feature, so I will link you to some old gun control threads which examine the issue. You can also search this site with google by entering "[search term] site:boards.straightdope.com" ... for example "second amendment site:boards.straightdope.com"



Just as an FYI, guests can use the search feature, but only once every 5 minutes.

Thanks for the Google tip, by the way.

JXJohns
11-10-2009, 11:16 AM
... There is no unorganized militia no matter how many laws say otherwise. A law can repeal gravity - on paper - but have no effect in real life. So it is with the fiction of an organized militia. In point of fact, one could argue that the very term is an oxymoron in and of itself.

I guess if you keep repeating something over and over again, you naturally tend to start believing it. Until the US Code is changed, it clearly states who and what both the organized and unorganized militias are, and all of your hand wringing doesn't change anything.

haymarketmartyr
11-10-2009, 11:30 AM
I guess if you keep repeating something over and over again, you naturally tend to start believing it.

You guys would know that better than anybody.

Senor Beef

it was nice of you to provide all those links. However, I have heard all those arguments and reject them. Well regulated means just what it says and it does not have a damn thing to do with clocks. There is no "unorganized militia" in the real world. Or have I been a secret member of an "unorganized baseball team" all these years but nobody bothered to tell me about that one either.

You guys like to pick and carefully select which portions of the Constitution you like and even which parts of which sentences you like as well. If a word gets in the way, you change the meaning of it just like you are trying to do with "well regulated" or "militia".

And then you wonder why we cannot actually talk with each other?

SenorBeef
11-10-2009, 11:39 AM
It's funny how in one post you talk about how things mean what they say, except when you think they don't mean what they say, but that you can't talk to us because we try to change the meanings of words to suit our purposes.

You start a thread in which you call murderers "second amendment heros", implying that gun rights advocates glorify murder, and then you try to tell us that you are the voice of moderation and reason and that it's our fault that we can't have an honest, reasonable dialogue.

You are not being reasonable and I don't think this will change. Your views are unchallengable (that is to say that you cannot critically evaluate your own views on this, so we're arguing past you), and you misrepresent your intentions in this argument.

haymarketmartyr
11-10-2009, 11:56 AM
Really? I do not see that. I see myself as taking the entire Second Amendment and looking at what the word MILITIA meant in 1789. I see myself as looking at the word ARMS and what it meant in 1789. I see myself as looking at the words WELL REGULATED and what those words meant in 1789.

The facts are that we no longer have a MILITIA as we did in 1789 and those functions are now done by professionals.

The facts are that ARMS to the Founding Fathers bear little resemblance to the weapons of 2009.

The facts are that the meaning of the words WELL REGULATED have not changed a bit over the last 200 plus years.

JXJohns
11-10-2009, 12:01 PM
You guys would know that better than anybody.
Just because you disagree with us, certainly does not make us wrong and you right. So far, pretty much everything that the pro-gun types in this thread have posted were facts, rather than opinion. The fact that you cannot accept the facts as truth does not diminish it.

it was nice of you to provide all those links. However, I have heard all those arguments and reject them...

... And then you wonder why we cannot actually talk with each other?

Gee I wonder...

We've asked how you'd like to compromise if we offered up the shooter's type of gun to be banned. What would it be worth to you in the spirit of compromise and all? My guess is that your type compromise would be to ban all semi auto guns and let us keep our dirty harry guns instead. And then you wonder why we cannot actually talk with each other?

haymarketmartyr
11-10-2009, 12:18 PM
Offering to ban the shooters gun is no compromise because such things are already on the extreme of the continuum. It is as if you have 100 cans of paint in the closet and your offer of compromise is to give up one color of my choice.

Lets face it, we cannot even agree on what the words in the Second Amendment actually mean piece by piece.

We do not agree what the meaning of MILITA is.

We do not agree what ARMS are.

We do not agree what WELL REGULATED means.

We do not agree about the relationship of the first part of the Amendment to the second part of the Amendment.

And we certainly do not agree about the intent of the Second Amendment as written by the Founders way back in the 18th century.

So really, honestly, what does it matter if your "facts" about guns since World War II are right or not? This is not about technical specs. It is about how we have significantly and radically different views of the Second Amendment.

Labrador Deceiver
11-10-2009, 12:38 PM
What I see is a person who knows absolutely nothing about guns or US law, arguing vehemently about both.

You've opened your mouth and removed all doubt.

kopek
11-10-2009, 12:46 PM
Offering to ban the shooters gun is no compromise because such things are already on the extreme of the continuum. It is as if you have 100 cans of paint in the closet and your offer of compromise is to give up one color of my choice.



While you think its possible for everyone to just allow you to ban all privately owned paint? Ain't gonna happen kiddo. Given the usual result of prohibitions in this country, I don't think you would like the results much.

:D

Todderbob
11-10-2009, 12:49 PM
Offering to ban the shooters gun is no compromise because such things are already on the extreme of the continuum. It is as if you have 100 cans of paint in the closet and your offer of compromise is to give up one color of my choice.Okay, so tell me, what should we give up? And what are you going to give us in return?

Lets face it, we cannot even agree on what the words in the Second Amendment actually mean piece by piece.That's because we like to look things up before we define them, where you like to define them as best fits your opinion.

We do not agree what the meaning of MILITA is.I'll define it, as defined by the Dictionary (Merriam-Websters English and Dictionary.com), the Federal Government (in the Laws of the USA) and Popular Opinion (in Wikipedia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html)(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

We do not agree what ARMS are.Arms, defined as weapons. Encompassing Firearms, Knives, Swords, billy clubs, etc.

We do not agree what WELL REGULATED means.It's commonly known that the term Well Regulated meant "functioning properly" for as much as 150 or 200 years after, and considerably longer before, the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If you disagree, I encourage you to call up any historian and ask them.

We do not agree about the relationship of the first part of the Amendment to the second part of the Amendment. There's nothing in there, though, that requires one to be in a militia to own a firearm.

But if you read that, you can clearly see that it says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The point being that the people are the Militia. I can't see how that could be made much clearer to you.

And we certainly do not agree about the intent of the Second Amendment as written by the Founders way back in the 18th century.Okay, tell me, what do you think was the intent?

So really, honestly, what does it matter if your "facts" about guns since World War II are right or not? This is not about technical specs. It is about how we have significantly and radically different views of the Second Amendment."Facts" are not up for debate, nor are they meant to be put in quotes to be sarcastic.

This is about technical specs -- you made it that way when you decried "cop killing super guns" and "keep your dirty harry hand cannons."

Labrador Deceiver
11-10-2009, 12:57 PM
Offering to ban the shooters gun is no compromise because such things are already on the extreme of the continuum. It is as if you have 100 cans of paint in the closet and your offer of compromise is to give up one color of my choice.


What continuum are you talking about, and why is that gun on the extreme end of it?

haymarketmartyr
11-10-2009, 01:15 PM
Continuum: place the arms that the Founding Fathers knew and had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment on one end of the continuum. Then place the advanced and far more powerful weaponry available today at the opposite end of the continuum.

dueling definitions

Etymology

The term "militia" is derived from Latin roots:
miles /miːles/ : soldier[4]
-itia /iːtia/ : a state, activity, quality or condition of being[5][6]
militia /mil:iːtia/: Military service[4]
In English, the word "militia" dates to 1590 when it was recorded in a book by Sir John Smythe, Certain Discourses Military with the meanings: a military force; a body of soldiers and military affairs; a body of military discipline[7]