On an assault weapon ban

[Bone]

@asahi

Because that’s all that your response merits.

I’ve now noticed another theme of yours*:

@asahi

I know the subject well. However, I am not really interested in playing lawyer anymore. …
I have neither the time nor the interest in such trivial exercises.

@asahi

I’m not going to debate you…
…so I’m not interested in debating with amateurs …

When your claims are disproven and shown to be false, suddenly you are both simultaneously an expert and not willing to debate. That sheds light on the complete lack of citation and support for your false claims. Why do you continue to stand behind your false claims? Maybe you think emoji is part of your linguistic mastery? It’s not persuasive in the least.

@asahi

Fatuous casuistry. No further response required.

So to elaborate - you make a false claim and you attempt to handwave it away. Not only that, you refuse to describe the non-standard way in which you are using common words.

@asahi

Yes, in Heller, they held that it was an individual right. Again, in case you’re forgetting something (conveniently), that was the first ruling that attempted to interpret the 2nd Amendment since 1939. And you’re conveniently forgetting the activism of the right-wing Court.

Actually, what I’m doing is not being distracted by irrelevance. What does your opinion of the political leanings of the court have to do with anything? What does the lack of 2nd amendment SCOTUS jurisprudence from 1939 to 2008 have to do with anything? The problem here is you’ve failed to make any semblance of a coherent point.

@asahi

If this “right” to possess arms were as absolute and consistent as you claim, then taking a legally purchased shotgun and sawing off the barrels hardly seems like a worthwhile expenditure of the Court’s time and resources. And surely the Court couldn’t ban such weaponry merely because it doesn’t fit the definition of ordinary military arms.

Here again you overreach and falsely state a claim. The pattern in which you do this could lead someone to think your strawmanning is intentional. Is it? To be clear, I never made the claim that the right to possess arms was absolute nor consistent. That is your own concoction.

@asahi

It was written as part of the majority opinion, a factor in their rendering a verdict in the Miller case. Had there been an unfettered individual right to modify a shotgun, there wouldn’t be an issue. However, you and I both know the truth, don’t we?

If this collective rights theory was part of the majority opinion, surely you can cite it, right? I challenge you - Cite it. You can’t because it wasn’t there and your claim is false.

@asahi

Um, nope. You’re wrong. As I mentioned, firearms control laws were in place in the states long before the Reconstruction era – you know, when blacks were still slaves and had no rights any way.

It’s funny that you think this refutes my claim. It doesn’t. My claim was “the roots of gun control have always been racist” and “gun control was racist in its origins.” This turns on what you think “roots” and “origins” are. The existence of laws pertaining to firearms prior to reconstruction doesn’t refute this claim. Perhaps you’d like to furnish a cite for your claim. In any event, the abomination of slavery at the founding up through civil war times resulted in complete destruction of all rights of slaves. Disarmament also applied to free blacks pre-reconstruction. But let’s look at what the Atlantic had to say:

**INDISPUTABLY, FOR MUCH of American history, gun-control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress African Americans. **The South had long prohibited blacks, both slave and free, from owning guns. In the North, however, at the end of the Civil War, the Union army allowed soldiers of any color to take home their rifles. Even blacks who hadn’t served could buy guns in the North, amid the glut of firearms produced for the war. President Lincoln had promised a “new birth of freedom,” but many blacks knew that white Southerners were not going to go along easily with such a vision. As one freedman in Louisiana recalled, “I would say to every colored soldier, ‘Bring your gun home.’”

After losing the Civil War, Southern states quickly adopted the Black Codes, laws designed to reestablish white supremacy by dictating what the freedmen could and couldn’t do. One common provision barred blacks from possessing firearms. To enforce the gun ban, white men riding in posses began terrorizing black communities. In January 1866, Harper’s Weekly reported that in Mississippi, such groups had “seized every gun and pistol found in the hands of the (so called) freedmen” in parts of the state. The most infamous of these disarmament posses, of course, was the Ku Klux Klan.

IN RESPONSE TO the Black Codes and the mounting atrocities against blacks in the former Confederacy, the North sought to reaffirm the freedmen’s constitutional rights, including their right to possess guns. General Daniel E. Sickles, the commanding Union officer enforcing Reconstruction in South Carolina, ordered in January 1866 that “the constitutional rights of all loyal and well-disposed inhabitants to bear arms will not be infringed.” When South Carolinians ignored Sickles’s order and others like it, Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of July 1866, which assured ex-slaves the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty … including the constitutional right to bear arms.”

(my bold)

Here’s UCLA Professor Adam Winkler:

Yet the men who wrote and ratified that provision [the 2nd amendment] had extensive gun laws—and **many of them were racially discriminatory. Not only did they support laws prohibiting slaves from possessing guns, they also disarmed free blacks, **who the Founders feared might join together with their brethren in chains to revolt.
The fear of blacks with guns was one of the reasons behind the Supreme Court’s notorious decision in the Dred Scott case. Chief Justice Roger Taney’s opinion insisted that blacks could not be citizens because, if they were, they’d have all the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the right to “full liberty of speech… to hold public meetings on political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

Notice the other theme? When I make a claim, I can support it with evidence, citation, etc. When you make a claim, you support it with bluster, claims of expertise, and apparently false claims that you aren’t going to debate. Well, I guess that last one is probably true because what you’ve done thus far doesn’t qualify as debate so much as it is false nonsense.

---

Let’s revisit the “compromise” issue. Here’s what I said about compromises:

@Bone

A compromise is when an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

(my bold)
The key is that concessions are not unilateral. You’ve failed to grasp this even though it’s been made clear to you multiple times. At this point, and given your alleged linguistic expertise, I wonder why you continue to use this word in a non-standard way. Let’s continue to disabuse you of the notion that you are correct:

@Dictionary.com

a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

@Merriam-Webster

a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute

@Cambridge

an agreement between two sides who have different opinions, in which **each side gives up something **it had wanted:

(my bold in each of the above)

Notice the theme? Opposing sides need to give up something in order for it to be a compromise. Your claim that there have been compromises is blatantly false.

@asahi

Now, in typical NRA fashion, you’re at the point where, realizing that I actually do know what the fuck I’m talking about…

Actually no. There is no evidence this is true. Let’s update our list of your false claims and errors:
[ol]
[li]You stated there have been compromises or offers of compromise but have failed to support this claim leaving the impression that you are using the word compromise in a non-standard way. [/li][li]In post #301 you stated separately the “gun show loophole” (sic) and universal background checks, as if these were different things[/li][li]You mistakenly claimed that denial of cert by SCOTUS is an affirmation of a lower court ruling - this is false.[/li][li]Similar to the above, you claimed that SCOTUS upheld prohibitions on some types of firearms and restrictions on concealed carry - this is false.[/li][li]You claimed that I had said SCOTUS had been consistent - this is false.[/li][li]You claimed that SCOTUS has held the 2nd amendment to be a collective right at some point, and in Miller - this is false.[/li][li]You claimed that Cruikshank was the first time that any firearms control law ever became a federal controversy - this is false.[/li][li]You claimed that gun control itself was not rooted in racism - this is false.[/li][li]You claimed that Miller opined that the right to keep and bear arms was tied to it’s purpose in equipping a well-regulated militia - this is false - Miller was about the type of arms that were covered under the 2nd amendment - not the right itself.[/li][li]You claimed that that either Heller or McDonald, or both were rendered by Scalia and Thomas - This is false, both were 5-4 opinions so there were 3 other justices involved. If you were talking about the author of the opinions only as representative this is still false because Alito authored McDonald. This seems like frothing and an attempt to get a dig on Thomas.[/li][/ol]
The list is growing.

*“Any man who must say, “I am the king” is no true king”

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Velocity

I’ve never understood something about the 2nd Amendment: There’s a sliding scale of weaponry that exists in the world; on the one hand, everyone is allowed kitchen knives in their kitchen; on the other extreme; no private citizen can have nuclear weapons.

So how hard would it be for the gun-control side to simply push the spectrum a bit further so that guns are now in the “not-allowed” category but as long as everyone still has Tasers or pepper spray, they’re technically bearing arms?

Heller clarifies that the second amendment is a right to effective self defense and handguns in the home are specifically pointed out as being protected by the second amendment. This specific right to handguns will be very difficult to get rid of without a constitutional amendment or a reversal by the supreme court.

There is still a militia element to the analysis its just not a constraint to the individual right to keep and bear arms. So there is still a right (and this may be a collective right) to keep and bear arms that are useful in a militia setting.

[rat_avatar]

@Slash1972

Please site the definition of “assault weapon” that you are using here.

The state that provided the numbers has an entire list…“assault weapon” is a term that was manufactured to be obtuse, and typically is applied based on cosmetics but the state of California has tried to make a list.

So go with any firearm with “the shoulder thing that goes up…”

[Bone]

@Slash1972

It seems that heavy restriction and outright banning in some states has led to a significant drop in the amount of automatic weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens. Further, it doesn’t seem like only criminals have automatic weapons in the states that have banned it. That seems to fly in the face of “restricting and/or banning guns has no effect”

It seems to me that you haven’t made any claim that can be contested. Would you like to state a claim?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@asahi

Uh let’s get this straight, pops – Australia enacted their law in 19 and 90 fucking 6. That was before Jonesboro, Arkansas. That was before Columbine. That was before Mark Barton murdered 12 co-workers at a day-trading firm in Atlanta. That was before Virginia Tech. That was before Newtown, CT. That was before Arizona. That was before Aurora, Colorado. Before Charleston, SC. Before Roseburg, OR. Before San Bernardino. Before Orlando. Before the many countless mass murders of 5, 6, or 7 victims here and there that haven’t made the news. Australia took action and made it more difficult to commit mass murder. Not impossible, but more difficult.

Perhaps you should read the post you are responding to again because your response doesn’t seem related to it. I said that Australia never had a lot of mass shootings to begin with. The fact that Australia hasn’t has a mass shooting in 20 years is pretty meaningless when you consider how few they had to begin with and if you consider the fact that neighboring New Zealand has ALSO had no mass shootings in a long time without a gun ban.

Since 2001, there have been 400,000 deaths from handguns. That’s 400,000 – in just 15 years. We lost 2900 people on September 11th, 2001 and we considered that enough to use extra constitutional means to invade a foreign country. Yet more than 100 times that number kill themselves and others with guns, and we do nothing about it. At some point, a society has to have enough sobriety to know that its priorities are screwed.

You realize that I was referring to the subject of this thread, an Assault Weapons Ban.

None of what you wrote in this post has much to do with what you were responding to.

BTW, why are you calling me pops? Did I know your mother?

[rat_avatar]

@iiandyiiii

I’m pretty sure this is false. In terms of crime (and especially mass shootings, in which these would be the most dangerous), I’m almost certain it’s false. But I don’t have a cite handy (and nor, it seems, do you).

I am not the one claiming knowledge and opining about mass shootings. Looking in my browser this is not IMHO, admit your ignorance or show that AWBs help prevent mass shootings.

@iiandyiiii

I’m not saying “gun control does help” – I’m saying “machine gun restrictions have successfully made machine guns very rare in crime”. Most gun control in the US seems to have been a total failure, but this is one gun restriction that has mostly worked.

And I am saying that your claim that it was causative is not justified. Machine guns may have been rare due to a lack of practical uses, which may also have made them an easy target for legislation.

I could argue that a flamethrower is far more useful for a mass murder and they are not restricted by federal law at all. Does the fact that there is no federal restriction on flame throwers prove that they are safe? That is what you are claiming.

[iiandyiiii]

@rat_avatar

I am not the one claiming knowledge and opining about mass shootings. Looking in my browser this is not IMHO, admit your ignorance or show that AWBs help prevent mass shootings.

Alright, according to this cite, crime with automatic weapons is very, very rare.

And I am saying that your claim that it was causative is not justified. Machine guns may have been rare due to a lack of practical uses, which may also have made them an easy target for legislation.

I could argue that a flamethrower is far more useful for a mass murder and they are not restricted by federal law at all. Does the fact that there is no federal restriction on flame throwers prove that they are safe? That is what you are claiming.

Good point that correlation does not imply causation. But at the very least we can say that there is no evidence that machine gun restrictions have failed, unlike many other gun control attempts in the US.

But I’m not claiming anything about how “safe” machine guns are – I’m only trying to evaluate whether federal restrictions have been successful. It’s very hard, if not impossible, to prove that these federal restrictions are the cause of a very low rate of crime with machine guns.

[rat_avatar]

@iiandyiiii

Alright, according to this cite, crime with automatic weapons is very, very rare.
Good point that correlation does not imply causation. But at the very least we can say that there is no evidence that machine gun restrictions have failed, unlike many other gun control attempts in the US.

But I’m not claiming anything about how “safe” machine guns are – I’m only trying to evaluate whether federal restrictions have been successful. It’s very hard, if not impossible, to prove that these federal restrictions are the cause of a very low rate of crime with machine guns.

So lets see, you will push for legislation that

a) you admit cannot be tested for effectiveness
b) demonstrated no effectiveness during the first AWB
c) distracts from working on the real problems like stigmatization mental health, improving religious tolerance or improving ways for frustrated males to let off steam etc…
d) increases republican voter turnout.
e) creates yet another black market
f) bans items that are based on basic 1800’s manufacturing technology which is easily manufactured in a garage.

This is why I cringe, AW bans are my teams version of yallqaeda…one of whom had stolen a legal machine gun

‘Picasso of Machine Guns’ Arrested by FBI in Oregon

And the fact that there is a black market is true despite your wishes to hand wave them away

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-federal-gun-charges-20151222-story.html

[iiandyiiii]

@rat_avatar

So lets see, you will push for legislation that

a) you admit cannot be tested for effectiveness
b) demonstrated no effectiveness during the first AWB
c) distracts from working on the real problems like stigmatization mental health, improving religious tolerance or improving ways for frustrated males to let off steam etc…
d) increases republican voter turnout.
e) creates yet another black market
f) bans items that are based on basic 1800’s manufacturing technology which is easily done in a garage.

This is why I cringe, AW bans are my teams version of yallqaeda.

Where did I push for any legislation? Do you have me confused with a different poster?

[rat_avatar]

@iiandyiiii

Where did I push for any legislation? Do you have me confused with a different poster?

You are arguing for it right now…if you are just arguing that the NFA reduced machine gun crime that is special pleading. Please revisit the flame thrower point.

[iiandyiiii]

@rat_avatar

You are arguing for it right now…if you are just arguing that the NFA reduced machine gun crime that is special pleading. Please revisit the flame thrower point.

What are you talking about? When did I advocate for anything at all, much less any legislation? Please show me the posts you’re referring to in which I advocated for anything.

[rat_avatar]

@iiandyiiii

What are you talking about? When did I advocate for anything at all, much less any legislation? Please show me the posts you’re referring to in which I advocated for anything.

Lets be clear, unless you can come back with a point this is useless.

You do realize that full auto was REMOVED from military rifles and has typically ONLY been useful for suppressive fire in hand held rifles?

Yet flamethrowers were outlawed in war due to their effectiveness and brutality.

Your are claiming that the NFA restrictions on machine guns worked but then can offer no evidence of that.

You are making a claim that is false, if you are making the claim just to make that claim then state that or start a new thread.

[iiandyiiii]

@rat_avatar

Lets be clear, unless you can come back with a point this is useless.

You do realize that full auto was REMOVED from military rifles and has typically ONLY been useful for suppressive fire in hand held rifles?

Yet flamethrowers were outlawed in war due to their effectiveness and brutality.

This has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. The only assertions I’ve made have been about fully automatic weapons.

Your are claiming that the NFA restrictions on machine guns worked but then can offer no evidence of that.

I offered evidence of their very low usage, statistically, in crime. But you correctly pointed out that correlation does not imply causation. Federal restrictions on machine guns may be the cause of this, but there’s no way to prove it.

You are making a claim that is false, if you are making the claim just to make that claim then state that or start a new thread.

I don’t even know what “making the claim just to make that claim” means. I thought the possible affect of federal machine gun restrictions might be an interesting point in this discussion. I never advocated for anything, and personally I think the “assault weapons ban” is a dumb and pointless idea.

[iiandyiiii]

Surprised that you jumped all over me, rat avatar, especially assuming advocacy where there was none. From my memory we’ve usually been on the same side of issues, and we may be on this one as well.

[DrDeth]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

The Obama/Holder administration did not turn over all of the documents requested. ]

We DEMAND the ORIGINAL Birth Certificate!!:mad::mad::mad:

:rolleyes:

[DrDeth]

@Damuri_Ajashi

To be fair, your use of the word “compromise” has been non-standard. You are probably not using the word compromise inappropriately because you don’t know what it means but because you want to frame the gun rights side as uncompromising, which is a half step from unreasonable, which is kissing cousins to irrational. And by contrast frame your side of the argument as rational, reasonable and ready to compromise.

A "compromise’ is when both sides give up a little and they come to some sort of unsatisfactory to both sides but not horrible medium. Not when one sides gives up a little and the other side then demands more.

“Just the Sudetenland, that’s all Germany is asking for…”

““You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.”.”

[DrDeth]

@asahi

Since 2001, there have been 400,000 deaths from handguns. That’s 400,000 – in just 15 years.

Most of which were suicides. There are somewhere between 5000-6000 handgun murders a year. That would make the number under 100K.
That same period around 750000 nonsmokers were killed by secondhand smoke. Ten times that number by smoking.

[DrDeth]

@ElvisL1ves

It’s nothing more than an excuse. A lame one.

When the gun lobby offers a sincere, excuse-free, cover-story-less “compromise”, we can certainly discuss it. But they haven’t and won’t, will they?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/coburn-proposes-common-sense-universal-background-check-system-gun-control-advocates-hate-it/

[rat_avatar]

@iiandyiiii

Surprised that you jumped all over me, rat avatar, especially assuming advocacy where there was none. From my memory we’ve usually been on the same side of issues, and we may be on this one as well.

No, you are trying to pave over an invalid claim that you made here.

@iiandyiiii

Restrictions on fully automatic weapons seem to be an American gun control success story – criminals (mass shooters and others) very rarely use them, and they aren’t easy to obtain illegally.

You provided no information to support that claim then you discounted every cite that I provided showing that there was.

a) There is no evidence that the NFA had impact on crimes committed with machine guns.
b) That we have no evidence that mass shooters would even use them, especially when they fully ignore unregulated, far more deadly weapons.

It is actually far easier to manufacture a machine gun than a semi-auto firearm as a semi-auto firearm is mechanically more complex than a full auto weapon and is only marginally less complex than a selective fire weapon.

But apparently your response to having your argument disproven is to pretend you never made an argument in the first place.

[iiandyiiii]

@rat_avatar

No, you are trying to pave over an invalid claim that you made here.

You provided no information to support that claim then you discounted every cite that I provided showing that there was.

I did provide information showing that machine guns are very rarely used in crime. I didn’t address your cites since they showed up in an edit after I responded to your post, but looking at them now I don’t think they even conflicted with any of my assertions. Then I agreed with you that correlation doesn’t imply causation – it is indeed impossible to show whether or not the federal restrictions are the cause of these statistics. So while I said it “seems to be” a success story, I’ll gladly take that back (and already did, multiple times).

I think you’re really, really trying hard for an argument that’s just not here.

a) There is no evidence that the NFA had impact on crimes committed with machine guns.
b) That we have no evidence that mass shooters would even use them, especially when they fully ignore unregulated, far more deadly weapons.

It is actually far easier to manufacture a machine gun than a semi-auto firearm as a semi-auto firearm is mechanically more complex than a full auto weapon and is only marginally less complex than a selective fire weapon.

But apparently your response to having your argument disproven is to pretend you never made an argument in the first place.

I think you’re in the wrong room – arguments are down the hall.

But I still love you. And I still think that the assault weapons ban is a dumb idea. Prove me wrong, if you still want to argue.

Or if you want a nastier tone, HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF ADVOCATING FOR SOMETHING THAT I NEVER ADVOCATED FOR??? HOW DARE YOU PAVE OVER MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME???