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

The BBQ Pit
121

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
But why give the bad guys extra ways to accomplish bad shit, when there’s really no downside to it?
[/quote]

No downside? Like your rights. Stunning.

Well, so far, it does not seem like the ‘bad’ guys are using this particular caliber. Just like they don’t typically use fully automatic weapeons.

While I don’t doubt that a .50 bmg or the .308 that is used by our armys and Marines, could cause damage at a long distance. Where, exactly would you like this to stop?

The .308 is the round for sniping. It is also a very very common hunting round.

The VERY comon .30-06 can reach verry far. The 7mm or any other common huting rifle can as well. What about the .25-06? Or the 222?

It’s just silly, and those that are anti gun seem to think that a those of us that own guns don’t understand them.

122

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I’m staying out of this one. Una claims that you could do serious damage to an airplane with an ordinary rifle. You’re saying even this heavy-duty gun couldn’t. Like I said, I don’t know shit about planes, other than (for the reasons I’ve detailed) it seems that there’s a realistic chance of hitting one in the air, albeit while slowing down for landing.
[/QUOTE]

Well, there’s damaging the plane and then there’s shooting it down. They are hardly the same thing. I’m not about to volunteer to sit in a plane while it’s being peppered with .50 -caliber bullets to prove my point, but let’s take a car as a partial example. Think about how many different places you could shoot a car that wouldn’t keep it from moving. You would basically have to hit the engine block or fuel system. Airplanes are much bigger than cars, and these systems are both more spread out and have redundant backups.

Well, banning every potential threat is not really a rational approach to the problem. It presumes that such a thing as 100% safety is attainable. It isn’t, no matter how many laws we pass.

Me too, but my point was that the real problem on 9/11 was not that the terrorists had weapons–they didn’t–the real problem was this “don’t resist” mentality. They knew they could take over the plane by just threatening a few people, and they did. The only plane that wasn’t able to kill anyone on the ground was the one that crashed in PA, and that’s because it’s the only plane whose passengers put up a fight. Well, why didn’t they (or any of the other passengers) do that BEFORE, instead of letting the terrorists take over the plane? It’s not as if a box cutter is a very effective weapon.

I think Americans just don’t grasp the difference between real security and the appearance of security; compare our TSA’s approach to that of Israel’s El Al Airlines. All the flap over “profiling” in the American media just mystifies me; does anyone think the 9/11 hijackers were corn-fed Iowa farmboys?

123

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Not to be confused with unregulated domestic surveillance and wiretapping, gutting habeas, and the like. Hopefully that distinction is clear.
[/QUOTE]
Where should that stop?

Just a little more is OK?

For myself and others, that distinction is clear. Those that don’t undstand, or know notthing about guns would like to prevent others from owning them.

That scares me.

124

[QUOTE=enipla]
No downside? Like your rights. Stunning.
[/QUOTE]
It seems to me that many Americans these days who call themselves “liberal” no longer care about rights. In fact, liberalism and conservatism have almost swapped places. Today’s liberal is yesterday’s conservative.

125

[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
Why does it matter what the people who wrote the US Constitution over 225 years ago wanted? We aren’t living in the 18th century anymore.
[/QUOTE]

Um, because that’s the primary argument of the pro-2nd-Amendment “constructionists”? I was addressing the most popular defense of "the [universal] *right to bear * [any and all] *arms" * interpretation of A2, not just making up my own argument.

126

[QUOTE=ExTank]
Some people got it coming.
[/QUOTE]

And anybody with a gun can decide who they are, who has it coming.

127

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Um…“the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

My bolding. Clearly someone is parsing things here. Perhaps you don’t consider a musket a ‘deadly weapon’? As those other rights you mentioned, our right to keep and bear arms is a ‘right’.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

:stuck_out_tongue: I’m not going to get into the whole debate on the 2nd Amendment here 'luci…we’ve done it before ad nausium after all…but I’d say that if if the Amendment is ‘frequently parsed within an inch of its life to torture a confession’ out of it, its YOUR side doing that tortured parsing. Its pretty clear, if one does the research (especially the Federalist Papers, as well as many of the writings of the FF), that the Founding Fathers meant just what they said…and just what the pro-gun crowd thinks it says…not the tortured interperetation you toss out here. Our own Cecil Adams agrees.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Please..spare me this weak ass shit 'luci. I could make similar arguements that clearly things have changed since the 18th century, so we don’t need our OTHER rights either.

And I hate to tell you think (it will clearly come as a shock to you), but your interperetation (and the rest of the anti-gun side) of the 2nd Amendment is both tortured and not universal. Most Constitutional and historical scholars who actually know what they are talking about say that the 2nd Amendment clearly says what it says…which is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

As Cecil says (to paraphrase), the HONEST thing for you folks to do is to bring in a new Amendment if you want things changed…not torture the one we have until it bears no semblence to the original intent of the folks who wrote it. But then, you folks ain’t honest…are you? And thats what REALLY pisses me off about the anti-gun crowd. If there is REALLY a problem with the average citizen owning a firearm the have the balls to do the right thing and fucking change the Constitution through the means provided for…get a new Amendment through restricting them.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Well, clearly there should be exceptions for Free Speech too, ehe? I mean, unless somone NEEDS something like that nasty gay porn, or movies with fat chicks or transexuals (or fat transexual chicks I suppose). Right? Clearly the US should restrict speech (for the good of the people, ehe?) like in Europe and decide that some subject shouldn’t be available to the people…right?

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Horseshit. It IS a Constitutional right…and you are spouting drivel by denying it. Cowardly bastards that your side is, they don’t have the balls to do the right thing and get that changed through the process we have. Instead they chip away at the right by such tortured interperetations as that horseshit you provided above. I wonder why that is? Why not come right out and simply get a new Amendment through? Could it be because your side, cowardly fucks that they are, KNOW that they can’t do it…so has taken this slow way of fucking the rest of us over? The death of a thousand cuts method of political change…ehe?

Perhaps not you 'luci (but then again, since you are using their canned arguments, maybe so), but your side needs to grow a pair and do the right thing…and accept the consequences if they can’t get it through. I’ll accept them if you DO…

-XT

128

[QUOTE=Eolbo]
There is nothing stupid about it… [snip]

[/quote]

I believe I alreayd mentiond that threatening parkd civilian aircraft was piointless and stupid. In fact, it’s better to threaten a parked civilian aircraft than just about anyting else you could shoot.

What do you think it’s gonna do? Explode in a Hollywood-style fireball the second you put a hole in it?

129

[QUOTE=T_SQUARE]
Does anyone have a factual answer as to the likely hood of a big ass explosion if an airliner’s fuel tank is punctured with a 50 while on the tarmac?
[/QUOTE]

You’d have a better chance at blowing up a car, Hollywood style. The only common fuel I really worry about exploding is propane, luckily propane tankers are very heavily reinforced.

130

[QUOTE=XT]
…Most Constitutional and historical scholars who actually know what they are talking about say that the 2nd Amendment clearly says what it says…which is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms…
[/QUOTE]

Circular argument. You define those who “actually know what they are talking about” by their agreement with your position, and then offer that authority as proof. Is it your contention that no constitutional scholar disagrees with you? None? Not one? Forgive my skepticism, but that will require rather more in the way of citation than your assertion that it is so. With all due awe.

I very much doubt that, but so what if you could? How does your ability to construct a weak argument have any bearing? That capacity is already on display.

Stawman. It is your contention that the right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental as the right to free speech. freedom of conscience, etc. You feel you don’t need to establish that, merely to state it forcefully enough and, wimp that I am, without a “pair”, I am compelled to agree. * Argumentum ad testosterone*.

(Aspersions on the other guys masculinity ought to be beneath you, XT. Do work on that, won’t you, there’s a good fellow…)

But lets cut to the chase. If, as you insist, the right to keep and bear arms is so fundamental, and the intent of the FFs was so clear, why did they even bring up the bit about a “well ordered militia”? If they didn’t mean it, why did they say it? Was it an accident? They could have said “the people’s right to keep and bear arms will not be abridged” and left it at that, couldn’t they? So go ahead, devestate me, tell me why they didn’t. After all, you have rank upon rank of verified Constitutional scholars right at your fingertips, Shirley you have the answer?

131

[QUOTE=Lizard]

Well, why didn’t they (or any of the other passengers) do that BEFORE, instead of letting the terrorists take over the plane?
[/QUOTE]

I believe the terrorists also said they had a bomb.
Until September 11, the thought of a hijacked passenger was, “Oh great, I’ll have to spend the night in Cuba.” Now they certainly will resist.

132

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Circular argument. You define those who “actually know what they are talking about” by their agreement with your position, and then offer that authority as proof. Is it your contention that no constitutional scholar disagrees with you? None? Not one? Forgive my skepticism, but that will require rather more in the way of citation than your assertion that it is so. With all due awe.
[/QUOTE]

No actually…I define it by their competence as a historian. Please, be so good as to show me some cites by acknowkedged experts on Constitutional history who agree with your point of view and then we can talk, there’s a good chap. With all due awe, as you say, its ironic that you accuse ME of circular argument when you provide no cite yourself…

:stuck_out_tongue:

[QUOTE=elucidator]
I very much doubt that, but so what if you could? How does your ability to construct a weak argument have any bearing? That capacity is already on display.
[/QUOTE]

Pot…meet Mr. Kettle. :stuck_out_tongue:

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Stawman. It is your contention that the right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental as the right to free speech. freedom of conscience, etc. You feel you don’t need to establish that, merely to state it forcefully enough and, wimp that I am, without a “pair”, I am compelled to agree. Argumentum ad testosterone.
[/QUOTE]

Do you suppose your deliberate attempt to mis-understand what I was saying is anything but transparent 'luci? Well, maybe it isn’t to the faithful. You however, being the smart fellow you are, have no excuse. Of course, when I said ‘grow a pair’ it had nothing to do with my contention that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is as fundamental as the Right of Freedom of Speech or any other right. To me, its self evident that ALL the rights are fundamental. However, when I said ‘grow a pair’ it had to do with the cowardly way your side is going about gutting this particular right…not in whether or not you or anyone else feels this right or that one is ‘fundamental’.

But it was a good try there 'luci…I’m sure the faithful are appreciative! :stuck_out_tongue:

[QUOTE=elucidator]
(Aspersions on the other guys masculinity ought to be beneath you, XT. Do work on that, won’t you, there’s a good fellow…)
[/QUOTE]

Its just a saying 'luci. How about this one, directed at the anti-gun crowd trying to wave away what is clearly a right: Get a backbone you cowardly fucks!

There. See? No sexism involved at all. Direct and too the point.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
But lets cut to the chase. If, as you insist, the right to keep and bear arms is so fundamental, and the intent of the FFs was so clear, why did they even bring up the bit about a “well ordered militia”? If they didn’t mean it, why did they say it? Was it an accident? They could have said “the people’s right to keep and bear arms will not be abridged” and left it at that, couldn’t they? So go ahead, devestate me, tell me why they didn’t. After all, you have rank upon rank of verified Constitutional scholars right at your fingertips, Shirley you have the answer?
[/QUOTE]

Have you read the Federalist Papers? I’m sure you have at least seen the cites. While I don’t feel like getting into the whole debate HERE, I’ll give a brief explaination…do with it as you will. Why did the FF talk about a ‘well ordered militia’, why did they include that in the Amendment? In a nut shell, the original, proposed Amendment was quite a bit longer than what we ended up with. It got basically chopped up in committee (thats what committee’s do best after all). Originally there were two separate parts…one dealing with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, another dealing with militia’s. They got chopped up and squished together in essence. No one in their right mind, at the time, thought it would be a problem…they all KNEW what they meant (you can read it in their private correspondence).

I’m sure this is old hat to you, as I’ve seen you lurking in these 2nd Amendment debates before. My guess is you are being obtuse for the peanut gallery with this particular argument.

Times change though. If today the majority of my fellow citizens REALLY think that the average, ordinary citizen should not have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, then the right thing to do is to amend the Amendment in the proper way. Thats why we HAVE a fucking Constitution, with provision for things changing. This weak ass argument that the FF meant something other than what they clearly DID mean (shown, as I say, by their private correspondence, among other things) is fucking cowardly…IMHO. Its a way to circumvent the original intent…and IMHO again, the will of the majority of my fellow American’s. I have no problem with regulation of firearms btw…my problem is with this creeping, cowardly, glacial backdoor approach to circumventing the will of the people (assuming that the people in the US still WANT the RIGHT to keep and bear arms of course…I think they DO myself)…and the intent of the FF.

-XT

133

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
My problem with this specific argument and the 2nd amendment is the idea that the second amendment mandates that I have the right to bear any arms that I like, and that restricting my access to .50 caliber weapons (or Howitzers or nukes or nerve gas, ala The Duck of Rat and Airman Doors) is akin to removing that right altogether along with free speech, peaceable assembly, and so on.

Some gun advocates have taken the slippery slope to the level of a mantra. “Ohm. Ohm. You-can-have-my-shoulder-fired-stinger-missle-when-you-pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-shoulder. Ohm.”

If you want to argue that you have the right to do anything and everything when it comes to weapons, I’ll tell you that I think you are fucking insane.
[/QUOTE]

Except that it’s already illegal for US civilians to own shoulder fired Stingers, nukes, nerve gas, etc. Without a Constitutional Ammendment to do so.

But I knew it was just too juicy to be ignored, thanks for not disappointing me.

Also, I didn’t bastardize your user name when I replied. I figured you to be enough of a debater to not have to resort to the ol’ name switch-a-roo.

134

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Well, then like Duke of Rat said, there is no rationale for disallowing any size weapon. I’m sure they’re all great fun to target shoot with, regardless of what their real utility might be.

[/QUOTE]

I never said that.

What I said was that it was a certainty that in any gun ban thread that the anti-gun people will show up and go off on some hyperbolic tangent about how if you can own X, then you should be able to own a nuke or a tank or a bazooka or any other thing that’s already illegal.

They do it every time. I knew they would and said so. I didn’t say there was no rationale for disallowing any size weapon, just that the anti-gun faction would be along to claim that.

And I was correct, it just took a little longer than usual.

135

[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]

Also, I didn’t bastardize your user name when I replied. I figured you to be enough of a debater to not have to resort to the ol’ name switch-a-roo.
[/QUOTE]

Now, now. You know how the anti-gun frootcaques work; when “logic” (Guns are evil!) and “reason” (Won’t someone please think of the children!) fail, ad hominem will git 'r done.

136

[QUOTE=xtisme]
No actually…I define it by their competence as a historian. Please, be so good as to show me some cites by acknowkedged experts on Constitutional history who agree with your point of view and then we can talk, there’s a good chap. With all due awe, as you say, its ironic that you accuse ME of circular argument when you provide no cite yourself…
[/quote]

Wasn’t my argument, you brought up scholarship and authority. “…Most Constitutional and historical scholars who actually know what they are talking about say…” Clearly, that construction is circular: your argument is certified by people who “know what they’re talking about”, and their authority is vouchsafed by the fact that they agree with you.

And deny the existence of honest argument, by asserting that “we” are attempting to skulk “our” way to victory. I assure you this is not the case, we simply do not interpret the 2nd Amendment like you do. Take it or leave it.

Unless a law encroaches upon the right of citizens to a well ordered and armed militia, it is not a Constitutional matter. The 2nd amendment is silent on the issue of any “right” of a citizen to possess a gun*, hence a gun is merely property like any other, and subject to all the regulations and vexations therein.

[QUOTE=XT]
…Have you read the Federalist Papers?..
[/QUOTE]

You don’t read the Federalist Papers, you slog the Federalist Papers, you suffer the Federalist Papers. I was trying not to get drafted, what’s your excuse?

So, that’s it? Everyone was in accord on this thing, no serious dissent or anything, and then they formed a committee of people that already agreed about it…and something else happened. In committee, or something. What, you think they banged it out over coffee and had it at Kinko’s by nine? Nobody noticed that rather crucial addition? Nobody read it and yelled “Hey, WTF! No, really, WTF!”

This is your guess, right? None of them ever admitted to such a bonehead play, did they?

Begs the question. Its only “right” if we agree with you, I do not. There is nothing civilly sanctified about firearms, they are property. Pretty stinko karma, but still, just property. Can’t take away what ain’t there to begin with.

I can only assure you that your opposition is neither cowardly nor especially creepy (except for Diogenes, he’s kinda creepy…) We dont acknowledge the center of your argument, that such an individual right is Constitutionally enshrined, right up there with the big boys. And it ain’t necessarily so, what you read in the Federalist Papers, it ain’t necessarily so…

    • outside the oft mentioned well ordered militia, which right is apparently sanctified so long as no one fires on Fort Sumter
137

Political Logic:

  1. We must do something.

  2. Proposal X is something.

  3. Therefore, we must implement Proposal X.

138

[QUOTE=Liberal]
It seems to me that many Americans these days who call themselves “liberal” no longer care about rights. In fact, liberalism and conservatism have almost swapped places. Today’s liberal is yesterday’s conservative.
[/QUOTE]
Strange isn’t it.

I consider myself a liberal in that I believe people should be able to make decisions for them selves. It seems that many conservatives no longer feel this way.

It seems that the anti-gun crowd is of the position that the government always knows what is best for you, don’t question it, just do it.

Perhaps they work for Nike.

139

[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
May I ask why? Aside from prohibiting large magazines and a few specific weapon brands and models) the ban did little besides prohibit specific combinations of certain cosmetic features of firearms that were not fundamentally different from typical hunting rifles. During the ban, numerous rifle models were released that were functionally equivalent to banned weapons; they merely left off the collapsing stocks, threaded barrels, and bayonet lugs. Even if you supported the idea of banning “scary-looking guns”, the 1994 ban was completely useless.

Personally I’m very glad the ban was allowed to expire, as now I can buy high-capacity magazines and get a new rifle with a bayonet on it. :smiley:

(Devil’s Advocate: But you know, something had to be done about all those drive-by bayonettings…)
[/QUOTE]

Okay, maybe I could afford to be a little more explicit on that point. First off, understand that I was 11 years old in 1994. So I only really learned about the ban when I researched it for my final project in a US Government course. As a result, my memory of the specifics of the ban are a little sketchy.

Specifically speaking, even then I felt the ban was somewhat inept, but my point is that I agree with the notion of banning military-grade weapons that lack sport, hunting, or personal defense applications. Particularly rapid-fire automatic weaponry and grenade-launcher attachments. A ridiculously large-caliber/long-range bolt-action rifle can be used as an extreme test of marksmanship for sport, but I don’t really see why any civilian needs to be able to lob grenades around, for instance. I guess that may invalidate my stance in the view of some of this law’s proponents in this thread, but I made the point to show that I am open to the idea of discussing that some weapons just aren’t safe for people to have.

Since assault weapons are apparently the go-to weapons for terrorists and para-military insurgents the world over, I think that a much better argument can be made for more tightly controlling them than the rifles that this thread was started about.

140

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
I believe I alreayd mentiond that threatening parkd civilian aircraft was piointless and stupid. In fact, it’s better to threaten a parked civilian aircraft than just about anyting else you could shoot.

What do you think it’s gonna do? Explode in a Hollywood-style fireball the second you put a hole in it?
[/QUOTE]

Oh yes you mentioned it as stupid you just didn’t provide a shred of supporting evidence for your position and you still havent. Modern .50 calibre sniper rifles used in an anti-material capacity typically employ a high explosive incendiary round like the Raufuss round. This is a significantly more advanced round then previous generations of 50 calibre ammunition and is purpose designed to be more effective against aircraft specifically against self-sealing fuel tanks. The manufacturer estimates their effectiveness as equivalent to a much larger 20mm round (.50 calibre weapons are 12.7mm). A similar round fired by a Barrett sniper rifled knocked out a BMP apc at about 1000 metres in Iraq. These weapons are sold in civilian versions and are significantly more readily available then the MANPADs and rocket launchers that you deem a greater threat. They are also lighter.

Apart from the military site indicating their use vs parked aircraft that I linked earlier I note in this regard that Barrett previously advertised their product as capable of “destroying multimillion dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area”.

Personally I dont think you would get a “Hollywood-style fireball the second you put a hole in it” and I imagine a fire on a fuel tank hit would be a more plausible outcome but its unlikely the plane will be leaving on schedule. You however dont seem to even think that a round capable of penetrating an inch of steel plate at 2000 yards and then exploding will even put a hole in it.
The weapon is designed to effectively engage and defeat materiel targets at extended ranges including parked aircraft

manufacturer comment:

The MP ammunition is designed to defeat targets like airplanes, helicopters, trucks, APCs, IFVs and other material targets of non-armoured or semi-armoured character. The ammunition functions via a pyrotechnical ignition train with delayed action of the blast, large fragments and incendiary effect inside the target.
Video of various objects being struck. Note effect of explosive round on armoured safe
[Picture of a .50 cal explosive round on impact](Picture of a .50 cal explosive round on impact)

GAO report on wide availability of military surplus armour piercing incendiary rounds on civilian market

Again I make no comment on the likelihood of any terrorist threat or on the wisdom or otherwise of any proposed ban I’m just commenting on technical capabilities.