Was that the beta version?
It was in direct response to your “Nukes and nerve gas” nonsense. As usual, someone takes it to an absurd extreme, and I’m rather tired of that tack so I took a shot at it.
Nothing you have said in this thread demonstrates that .50 BMG weapons are instruments of crime. You’ve simply made a case for why they should be banned, which I disagree with.
Your participation in this thread constitutes a defense? :eek: God save me from my friends.
Its kind of like I make a mental list, people I’ve met, people I know, I think it would be a good idea for them to have such a weapon at hand. And a list of people I’ve met and known, I think it would be a really, really bad idea.
The second list is a lot longer.
I wish that, for once, you would live up to your name, elucidator. What’s your point?
Who’s my leader, kimosabe? Where were all thise posts that didn’t get through to me?
I equate owning a gun with one of the RIGHTS guarenteed to me at the founding of my government…just like the other rights. YOU on the other hand seem to be willing to blithely handwave those rights away.
Seems to me that its YOU and your ilk who are trying to upset the apple cart here…not I. I just feel uncomfortable with people who want to make my rights disappear because they think its for my own good…
2.0
My thought exactly. Its sort of like the dubious honor of having gonzomax, lowbrass or Der on your side.
-XT
You put me in an awkward position. How to explain the blazingly obvious without appearing to condescend?
Oh, go for it 'luci! We are joyfully awaiting enlightenment here. Even though I got your original point (I found it irrelevant of course, but I did get it) I’m breathless with anticipation for you to further, um, elucidate you thoughts to us.
-XT
By the by, I’m not aware of military sues which involve shooting planes. I suppsoe it could be used for that, but I’ve only ever heard of these being used to disable light vehicles, and that not very often. There isn’t much point to sendinga million=-dollar weapon (the sniper) out to kill a few thousand-dollar weapon (a jeep). Usually, you use snipers to kill key commanders.
Well, no. We should go much further - Bush and Cheney should be authorized to put the entire American population, and as much of the rest of the world as they can manage, in leg irons. :rolleyes:
What IS this nonsense, Una? You’re freakin’ smart. Who hijacked your computer and posted the world’s biggest strawman?
Yeah, I think we should just do whatever to protect ourselves, without any risk/benefit analysis, or considerations of imposing on people’s freedoms, or any of that shit.
Well, no. But are they significantly more capable than everyday, garden-variety firearms for use in such crimes?
According to other posters in this thread, this gun is designed as an anti-vehicle weapon. If your garden-variety semiautomatic rifle is a potent anti-vehicle weapon, then there’s really no need for a gun to be specially designed to be one. I’m no gun expert, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have to take it at face value that this gun is in fact more effective at penetrating metal than your typical rifle is. Otherwise this gun is kinda pointless.
That’s YOUR conclusion. I’m missing the part where logic is involved, though.
IIRC, Miller would justify the possession of this weapon by a “well-ordered militia” such as the National Guard. I’m fine with that.
Miller made no distinction between the organized militia or the unorganized militia; that was a fabrication of U.S. v Case in '42 or '43 (I forget). Miller simply said that the weapon in question before the court wa swhether a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches was of the sort in ordinary use by the military, thus qualifying the specific weapon’s suitability for protection under the 2nd.
They also remanded it for further questioning and deliberation, which never took place.
Parker v. D.C. was a much better case in this regard.
I’m going to join in this pit thread for no good reason other than it’s really pissing me off. Sorry to join the fray with my redneck thoughts but here goes…
What the fuck? There is no connection at all between what these guys planned and banning that particular rifle. For the cost of that rifle, they could have made a car bomb and rammed the barracks. If we need to make changes to our rights to protect us from terrorists, there are plenty of amendments that can be throw out to make us safer.
Shooting refineries and planes? You can go online and find out how to make a mortar or even buy a small cannon. It would be much cheaper and way more effective to shell a refinery than try to shoot holes in an oil tank.
Well before the assault weapons ban, I asked my father what the hell was wrong with the NRA when they were fighting to stop a ban on armor piercing bullets. Who needs those types of bullets anyway? He replied that they were fighting the ban because it would be a first step toward more bans. I realize I need to call him because he was absolutely correct. I’m also going to have to join the NRA. I can’t stand them but if it helps to prevent anymore shredding of the Constitution, I’ll be happy to pay my yearly dues.
Yes, I own guns. Lucky for me, I still have that right as a law-abiding citizen of the United States. Of course that could change any day now.
Because it is unamerican. And I don’t mean that in some crazy, Joe McCarthy, “let’s get those god-hating commies” type of way. I mean that in the sense of what has been the central concept of our nation’s defining document throughout it’s history (the Constitution).
For example, surely you applaud the concept of innocent-until-proven-guilty that is exercised in our courtrooms? That until and unless the prosecution can present sufficient evidence to show guilt beyond all reasonable doubt the jury is obligated to find the defendant innocent? This philosophy is founded in the notion that government is inherently dangerous, and it must be obligated to convince the public every time it wishes to apply or increase it’s power.
We as a nation are (or were) fundamentally against the notion that governmental power exists wherever it isn’t specifically prohibited. Rather, the central conceit of our founding fathers was to create a nation where governmental power does not exist except where it is necessary.
Just because a law doesn’t inconvenience or repress a significant portion of the public doesn’t automatically make it okay. It must have a sound, compelling, and present need. We have already heard in this thread from people knowledgeable about military matters, firearms, and refineries, and have recieved a resounding answer of “no” to the assertions of a present danger by the advocates of this law.
I will agree that Airman Doors, USAF et al are missing the point by arguing the difficulty of hitting a plane in flight, that the concern is hitting one during take-off (doubtful), or (more likely) landing. But I also think that: A.) you all are underestimating the difficulty of hitting a plane while landing, B.) you are also overestimating the possibility of striking the plane anywhere that would cause any life-threatening difficulties mid-landing, and C.) the danger resulting from a plane being shot on the ground is minimal because of all the safety checks the crew (should be) performing every takeoff.
Where I’m coming from: I’m no gun-nut. I enjoy learning about military and civilian firearms, but I don’t own any and I never intend to. I was also for the ban on assault weapons. I’m also not a Libertarian or a states’-rights advocate. Lastly, I’m someone who generally avoids these kinds of discussions because I feel that people take them as a form of self-expression, and are too personally invested in their sides to actually consider the other side or come to a resolution.
The only bias I can think of that really applies here is that I generally loathe the majority of politicians and the two-party system, which makes me prone to think ill of any legislative activity that isn’t involved in working towards a resolution for Iraq, increasing civil freedoms, or trying to make the government more financially responsible.
I agree with Doors. We should wait until AFTER a airliner is shot down before we reign in the weapons that are capable of shooting them down. After all, if we learned one thing from 9/11, it’s that it’s always best to ignore the warning signs and wait until AFTER the horse has bolted to bar the door.
lissener you’re making a nice strawman there. Read above; the weapon was designed to hit light vehicles, it’s not very practical for that. It’s used for sport-shooting, it’s effective for that. It’s at the caliber that Una said the refinery tanks are tested to withstand, so it’s useless there. We have yet to see anyone mount a credible, factual argument that it would be feasible for committing acts of terror against aircraft in this thread.
The law is being pushed in response to a situation that does not have anything to do with these kinds of guns whatsoever.
It is clearly the act of a group of politicians out to make hey by exploiting the recent headline.
How can you be okay with this? 
Yes, the weapon could be used for (as yet unnamed) acts of terror, but even then the terrorists
A.) will get them anyway even if it’s against the law because, y’know, they’re terrorists
B.) could do a lot more damage, in a manner more fitting of their usual mo, for less money/hassle than acquiring one of these guns
If the argument of the advocates is that “in a post 9/11 world we need to accept that some liberties should be curtailed for the safety of the people, and we must be willing to seriously assess the risks and gains of specific liberties” then you still run into the stumbling block that no one here has presented arguments that this is a likely or probable risk (more so than the terrorists using over-the-counter store bought items to create bombs, for instance). Granted, there’s not much reason to keep these things legal, but I’m not seeing anyone actually present an argument for the need to outlaw them except restating the airfields/refineries argument without any facts or information to bolster it.
Oh, and a lot of disparaging of the opponents arguments. Which, as I understand it, is generally considered poor form in debates. I know this is the pit, but please try bring some actual arguments to the table, not just cynicism and apathy. Otherwise your opinion doesn’t carry much weight.
Since you insist
No “right” to possess deadly weapons exist. Rights are *fundamental *elements of a civil democracy…speech, freedom to or freedom from worship, voting…these are rights, they are mighty and sombre bedrock. They are totally huge.
The 2nd Amendment is frequently parsed within an inch of its life to torture a confession of such a right, but its nonsense. The intent of the Amendment is specific in its justification: “a well ordered militia”. (At a time when such militia were an entirely practical matter, as not all the American Indian tribes shared the nobility and civility of the Cherokee…) Otherwise, why even bring it up? If the intent were to assure that all citizens had a right to possess weapons, why not simply say so? But it doesn’t say so, its says something quite different.
Clearly, 18th century America had a real and certain use for the citizen militia. So have we, a National Guard to suppress looting in times of disaster, for instance. An organized militia. But unless we are living in dread of Canadian savages pouring over the border to plunder, there is no 2nd Amendment justification for a citizen to keep and bear arms. You might propose another justification, but the 2nd Amendment does not offer its comfort.
Certainly, there would be exceptions and exemptions, if one’s home is likely to be threatened by an armor plated grizzly bear, one should be permitted adequate resources for defense.
So while one might make an argument for gun ownership, elevating such an argument to the level of a constitutional right is drivel. The government is entirely free to regulate and/or forbid the possession of weapons as surely as it is free to regulate the possession of automobiles, and exactingly regulate their use. Or to forbid such use, as we see fit.
Nonsense yourself; the preamble is merely a dependent, explanatory clause to the subsequent independent clause “the right of the people…”
The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally (even citing the 2nd Ad. among others) that where the BOR says “People” it is referring solely and specifically to an individual right.
Parker v. D.C. skillfully demolished the notion that the individual right to keep and bear arms is dependent on any association a person may (or may not!) have with any militia, organized or otherwise. And as soon as it’s granted cert., I’m fairly confident that the SC will uphold Parker.
So, Constructionist, do you *really * think–really–that if the Framers could be brought here, today, by some kind of time machine, they would look at the devastation caused by hot and cold running guns, and *not * go, “Oh, shit, we better change that wording, to be more specific!” Or are you going to tell me that you think the Framers would look around them and go, “Yeah, cool, this is just what we hoped would happen.”
Seriously.
I think if the Framers had had any inkling what unfettered availability of guns–guns that don’t have to be reloaded from a powder horn after each shot–if they had had any inkling at all of what the future would bring, the 2nd Amendment would have been worded *very * differently.
Maybe, maybe not. I seriously think the freely available internet porn would raise more than a few eyebrows, moreso than the state of civilian armament.
Ben’d love the porn.
Actually, I think if the Founders were to realize the size of the government, they’d start another revolution. Or be surprised we didn’t have one 100 years ago. And they’d also be surprised so few people own guns. It was a pretty universal tool at the time. And I should note that Ben had the opportunity to see a Gatling gun prototype in action… and he so would have, because he’s that kind of guy.
And, honestly, I fail to believe that you could shoot down a jet with a Barret. Especially not a four-plus engine job of the 767 variety.
The Barret is not an anti-air weapon. You use rapid fire weapons for that. AA guns are usually something like 20mm cannons, four of them, linked to fire together, rapidly.
Hitting a jet, even if it were landing, while it is moving, is considerably more difficult than it seems. It’s moving at… what, like 150 MPH when it lands, according to bad memory of a flight sim I used to do. You’d have to hit a moving target repeatedly to do real damage there. And it wouldn’t be simple at all.
You might be able to crack the block of a Cessna, if you could hit it. It’d be tricky, but maybe possible. Then the pilot would have to perform a landing without an engine.