When in doubt, ban something, even if it's a totally unrelated gun.

The BBQ Pit
61

Great! Let’s apply that logic to OTHER Constitutional amendments! Why do blacks and women need to vote, when white men are capable of making all the really important decisions? Why do you need the right to not incriminate yourself, when the police know you’re guilty? In fact, wouldn’t their job be much easier if they could torture you into confessing, too? And why should the police need search warrants, when they know exactly where the evidence they want is? Shouldn’t you have to demonstrate a need to peacefully assemble before you’re allowed to protest anything the government does?

Catching on yet?

Regarding the bolded portion, you are describing basically what the Supreme Court of the United States has done. Are they irrational? And if they are, is there any hope for the rest of us?

62

Actually, people, I did consider the idea of shooting a stationary target. And I discarded it because it’s flat stupid. You don’t need a .50 cal gun to do that. If you can get one and haul it around (these suckers are huge), you can probably manage a mortar or a small missile launcher. Or a bomb or a whatever.

And those weapons would actually require less training. You have to be an extremely good shot to hit something at ranges of a mile. Given that the gun would do far less damage than almost anything else which might work at those ranges, I don’t see what the fuss its about.

63

And what if, by some miracle, a sniper could hit an airliner in flight. Even if he can smoke an engine, there are more. Even if he gets one in the boiler and kills the pilot, there is another one.

I’m not an expert, but is there a single spot on a commercial airliner one could shoot and cause a catastrophic failure? When these rifles are used as anti-material weapons in war, I would guess the goal is to shoot a parked plane on the tarmac to put it out of service in the future. As in, “Hey, there seems to be a big hole in the motor housing, maybe we shouldn’t fly today.” It’s not to make the plane explode in a fireball.

64

This is a little off-topic, but it follows what I posted earlier, about how 9/11 is an excuse for people to make wild, unsupported claims about our vulnerability and what terrorists might do. It’s from the Brady Campaign’s website, and it’s a perfect example of political opportunism:

Guess it’s irrelevant that no “weapons” of any kind were used in the 9/11 attacks.

65

No, because your points have the logic of a multiply held-back third grader behind them. Comparing the ability to vote, avoid self-incrimination, avoid torture, unreasonable search and seizure, and peacable assembly with the right to target shoot with whatever you want to target shoot with is about the stupidest thing I’ve heard this week. But it is illuminating regarding the mentality of gun advocates.

I suppose reason goes right out the window with many of you all. Why should one attempt to be reasonable in return?

66

I’m sure they are a great deal of fun. The point is, this legislation DOES seem to be aimed at the weapon without appearently logic, based solely on the size of the round (or perhaps measured in ‘scaryness’ units unknown to the rest of us). As has been pointed out, the number of folks actually hurt by such a weapon in the US on a yearly basis is vanishingly small (afaik, read: none).

Right. Exactly. It IS up to ‘the rest of us’ to pay for the liberty of others. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Its my duty to, if necessary, pay for YOUR liberty…and your’s to pay for mine, if necessary.

And of course, from my perspective, this is a pretty weak ass arguement on the part of the nutball faction of the gun control crowd. It doesn’t even make any rational sense…not that, IMHO ANY of it does…at least when they are trying to gut the constitution and ban ordinary citizens from rights originally granted on things like hand guns they can point to actual statistics for why they think it should be so. Personally I don’t think that it costs society is too high (about the same price we pay for, oh, say driving our cars in terms of loss of life per year)…but banning something that you can’t even show is even the equivelent threat of falling off a ladder in terms of danger to public safety on a yearly basis? Tell me how that makes sense to YOU Hentor…

Why? Are rights now based on need or something? I don’t think you NEED freedom of speech to be honest. I don’t really believe that you NEED freedom of religion either. Show me why you need them and I can come up with reasons you don’t. The fact that you can’t wrap your mind around the concept that some people want a gun doesn’t mean that it should be open season (so to speak :wink: ) on banning them.

BTW, IMHO there is nothing rational about starting from a position that ordinary, law abiding citizens should have any weapon banned or restricted from their use. Rationality of course is subject to your world view and whatever preconceptional baggage you are starting with.

-XT

67

I can’t promise this will satisfy you (you well know my intellectual limitations), but I promised you an answer, so here goes.

Essentially, you’re positing that the banning of certain kinds of guns is akin to the banning of certain kinds of speech, and suggesting that it’s hypocritical and self-defeating for me to fight against one less strenuously than the other. Is this a fair restatement of your argument? If so, let’s go on.

I) The Easy Answer. Ready? Here it goes: Sure. For the sedition exception to the First Amendment I’ll take a comprehensive automatic weapons ban, for fighting words I’ll take .45 caliber and over, for Incitement to Crime I’ll eliminate private sales and concealed weapons (and this is a gosh-darn gift, mind you- Second Amendment says nothing about selling or hiding the things), for Causing Panic I’ll take mandatory comprehensive background checks that can take a couple of months if necessary, for defamation – ooh, that’s a big one. How 'bout, for defamation I get a maximum throw weight, defined as projectile size times velocity. Oh, and for those damned unconstitutional “free speech zones” I get another restriction to be named later. Okay, now we’re even.

II) The Disclaimer. That answer doesn’t really satisfy me, either. For one thing, there is no real-world trade-off between the First and Second Amendments. As I’ve mentioned, my love for the First is the basis for my willingness to defend the Second. For another, there is no equivalency chart for encroachments on freedom of speech vs. abridgments of the right to keep and bear arms. But these faults, I think, originate in the original question, as I hope the following will explain.

III) A mush-mouthed and clumsy attempt to explain. I don’t accept the analogy that one gun, or type of gun, equals one speech or type of speech. There’s certainly nothing intuitive or analytical about it. The ability to say one thousand different things is inherent in the First Amendment in a way that owning one’s own armory is not implied by the Second. The right to bear arms is achieved a “fur piece” short of possession of every killing machine yet invented, but freedom of speech isn’t a reality as long as anyone is silenced. You may as well say that the First Amendment doesn’t allow you to talk directly to other people if the Second doesn’t allow you to shoot at them.

IV) A Gift for Those Who Disagree. I don’t know quite what to do about the argument that, just as the rest of the Bill of Rights was designed to give citizens both offensive and defensive weapons against oppressive authority, the Second Amendment, with its gift of armament, must have been designed for the same purpose, and should protect a balance of power between the citizenry and the government. I don’t know what to do, that is, except say Come on, guys! Where are you gonna keep your nukes and nerve gas?

68

Since this argument keeps coming up, I’ll trouble myself to answer it.

Civilian ownership of nuclear material is perfectly legal in some cases. Witness nuclear power plants. If I had several billion dollars and I could get the zoning approval I’d keep it in my backyard in a power plant.

As for nerve gas, I keep it in the same place you do- under my sink. Bug sprays are nerve gases.

69

So you got the bug spray, and therefore you claim the right to own any firearm existant now or in the future into the bargain? Nifty. Tell you what: go down to City Hall and try using Raid as an anti-personnel weapon and see how far you get. Let me know how the backyard nuke works out. Your “answer” wasn’t worth the trouble.

As much as we try to help you, we gun-shy folks are just going to get brushed aside, aren’t we, as long as you think the NRA bribe money will hold out? This is a friendly warning: eventually, there’s going to be a serious debate about what you can or can’t shoot, i.e., what can be defined as keeping and bearing arms under the Second Amendment. If you keep doing nothing but screaming NO! NO! NO! you probably won’t be regarded as a serious participant in that discussion.

70

You asked the question. It’s not my fault that you don’t like the answer.

Help me? By taking away my rights? I suppose it’s for my own good, too. :rolleyes:

71

Guh. This is almost as stupid as HR 1022, which seeks to revive the erstwhile assault weapons ban. Let’s hope both of these moronic ideas go nowhere fast.

I think I vaguely recall maybe one or two cases in which a .50-caliber rifle was used criminally - in neither case was it used to any great effect. They’re huge, heavy, and slow - they appeal almost entirely to sport shooters and enthusiasts, not to criminals or terrorists. Heck, I would own a .50-caliber rifle right now, if I could afford it - anyway, I can’t quite justify spending that much money on something I wouldn’t be able to shoot all that often, considering the lack of appropriate places to shoot nearby, and the high cost of ammunition. Someday, though, assuming the idiots in my state don’t ban it before then.

If anything, this is exactly why it’s protected by the Second Amendment. See United States v. Miller.

Hey! I’m sure there are plenty of gay riflemen who would resent that remark! :smiley: (And yes, I know that “riflemen” is a double entendre…)

72

Trying to take away one of our rights…for our own good. :rolleyes: Yeah, that sounds swell. I believe thats the exact same arguement used by some to restrict access to porn. They are just trying to help us you know…

Um…news flash ace. We are well aware of the fact that you folks have been trying to chip away at the 2nd Amendment for quite some time. :stuck_out_tongue: I’ll even concede that eventually you guys are likely to win the day. Another wonderful blow for our freedom, no doubt…taking away one of our Constitutional rights! I just wonder where it will stop…

Right. I’m sure you feel the same way about Freedom of Speech issues. I mean, if you unbending types keep screaming ‘NO! NO! NO!’ every time someone wants to (for your own good of course) ban something, you won’t be regarded as a serious participant in the discussion! Why do you NEED that porn after all? Its evil and dirty and such! If you will just give up that little thing, I’m sure the fundies will be content (until they want to ban the next thing of course)!

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

73

My god, that is an asinine response. I didn’t expect such outright fucking stupidness from you. But there it is.

Jesus, what a fucking shame.

74

Shit, I’m still trying to digest all that about the nanny state taking porno and guns away which plays right into the hands of the fundies. Or something.

75

I guess you couldn’t come up with a real response, huh?

Nobody here is seriously arguing that it would be a good idea for any random person to own nuclear weapons. Airman Doors was just responding to an equally asinine strawman.

76

Tough to grasp, ehe? :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

77

Thank you. You beat me to it.

78

Actually, Airman, I like your answer fine, except that now you’re (theoretically) defending private ownership of nerve gas and nukes. An answer to a strawman? Exactly what did you say that answered anything whatever? Let’s think about that. Okay, done. Nothing that has anything to do with refinery-igniting rifles in New Jersey? Too bad.

What’s *not * my fault is that Raid does not equal nerve gas (and, you know, good!) and that you have zero chance of owning a nuclear power plant (and, you know, good!), and therefore your answer makes you and anyone who wants to defend your right to own anything more dangerous than a spork look merely foolish rather than dangerous. Since I’m still willing to defend your right to keep and bear arms, please stop making us both look like idiots: I may decide at any time that it just ain’t worth it anymore.

xtisme, if it were possible to get through to you, previous posts would have done so. Apparently your ideal society is one in which it is punishable by death to criticize your Leader, but a misdemeanor to shoot him. You evidently still equate each gun you possess with a separate exercise of a basic human right, and everything else in the Constitution as a bargaining chip to be spent buying them all. Okay: you weren’t really being counted as a defender of the Bill of Rights anyhow.

79

Stealth Potato, are you familiar with the Alexander Arms Beowulf? It’s a hell of a thing. It’s mostly an AR-15, except the receiver and barrel have been changed. It fires a .50 caliber round, long distances, accurately and smoothly. And reliably. It even uses the old firing pin and clip from the AR-15… just has to be bent a bit, I gather.

I want one. Mostly for shooting junked computers and/or cars with.

And zombies, I suppose.

It’s pretty darn cheap, compared to a Barret.
http://www.gunblast.com/50Beowulf.htm

(Impressive you can hear it fire over the bad Drowning Pool)

Of course, I saw a Barret .50 Carbine the other day, on the cover of a magazine.

… it’s… only… technically… portable.

80

you know there are things that prisoners aren’t allowed to have 'cause they turn 'em into weapons. doesn’t make 'em relevant to any of those other arguements, either.