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

The BBQ Pit
141

[QUOTE=H3Knuckles]
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.
[/quote]

If what is to follow is your recollection, your memory is extremely sketchy.

Automatic weapons and grenade launchers have been controlled items since at least 1934. The Clinton Gun Ban was a ban on weapons cosmetically similar to assault rifles but functionally dissimilar. All weapons banned in 1994 were semi-automatic, and all characteristics of the banned weapons could be found in other non-banned weapons. It’s often said that the weapons banned were banned because they were ugly and black, and when you look at the facts it’s hard to argue with that.

What’s an assault weapon?

142

Fixed my non-working link:

Picture of a 50 cal explosive round on impact

143

[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Just because you can predict that people will exploit a weak element of your argument does not mean that you have addressed the weak element of your argument.

But don’t let that get in the way of your backslapping.

It’s simply a matter of there being some reasonable limit to the weapons available to the general public. if you do agree that it is reasonable to prohibit the general public from owning and firing Howitzers, by what logic do you contend that a .50 caliber should be okay?

Where do you draw the line and upon what principles or rationale do you draw it?

144

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Where do you draw the line and upon what principles or rationale do you draw it?
[/QUOTE]

The government drew the line a long time ago when the passed the National Firearms Act of 1934. .50 caliber is the maximum size that one can have without falling under the Destructive Devices portion of the Act. This has been the case for 73 years.

145

I. LOVE. These. Threads.

They bring out all the people who are willing to jettison all sense and logic just to be able to hold onto their dick-that-goes-boom. HY-larious. Pathetic–and tragic, for the many people who die every year so you can have your assplodin strapons–but hilarious. Especially the part where you cloak what is essentially a psychological pathology in the melodramatic piety of the fucking Constitution.

Pathetic.

146

[QUOTE=lissener]
assplodin strapons… psychological pathology…melodramatic piety…fucking Constitution…Pathetic.
[/QUOTE]

One must admit, you have a way with words. :slight_smile:

147

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
If what is to follow is your recollection, your memory is extremely sketchy.

What’s an assault weapon?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes it probably is on this matter. I studied it for one paper 4 or 5 years ago. Forgive me for not really remembering every little detail since it wasn’t pertinent to my life or even current political discourse (it was an old law that was no longer active).

Now that you mention it, I recall the part about fully-automatic weapons, but I had forgotten that too.

As I said in the post you were responding too, I realize now that my original comment should have gone into greater detail, but what I was trying to say was that I’m not so dedicated to the freedom of bearing arms in-and-of-itself that I can’t see that some are too dangerous (further emphasizing my belief that the justifications for this particular attempted ban are what I take issue with). Coupled with a flawed memory of an obsolete law I’ve now had to make two posts trying to explain the point of an off-hand comment, which has effectively eliminated any momentum my earlier arguments may have given to your side of the argument (that this ban is a bad idea).

What’s an “assault weapon,” well thanks to your response I now recall that the 1994 ban defined it differently than what I would use the term for. To me an assault weapon is one that is almost exclusively designed for open conflict, lacking use for sport, hunting, or defense. I believe the post you were responding too outlined my conception pretty clearly: things like fully automatic weapons (like the AK-47), things like the M203 Grenade Launcher (designed to mount on a rifle, no less), & equipment that can convert weapons into such a thing (like suppressors, and IIRC there are packaged kits to convert AR-15’s into automatic rifles, etc).

And between that and lissener’s last post, I’ve begun to lose my patience with this thread…

My point is that I dislike the idea of government trying to pre-emptively legislate things before we know it’s a problem, because it seems contrary to how we define the ideals of our country. Also, that I am not argueing against this law because I think any gun regulations or bans are inherently wrong, but because I think the justifications for this particular one are poor (I’ve lost track of the discussion but someone upthread listed explosive ammunition that militaries use for this kind of gun, but even that’s a poor argument because that’s just a case of outlawing the explosive ammo, not the gun itself).

148

Besides, our sides the limp wristed wussies, its the other guys are the hairy-chested nut scratchers.

149

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Just because you can predict that people will exploit a weak element of your argument does not mean that you have addressed the weak element of your argument.

[/QUOTE]

What’s weak about it? All I did was say that people would come in touting the fact that you can’t own something that’s already illegal as an argument for outlawing something that’s not illegal.

I can’t legally own a nuclear weapon, why should that even be a consideration when discussing anything but nuclear weapons? Because without any basis, hyperbole has to suffice.

Why can I buy hydrocodone? Heroin is illegal. Sounds like a stupid argument, but it’s analogous to the .50 cal = nukes argument. Still never stops it from popping up every single time a ban on certain firearms is mentioned.

150

[QUOTE=lissener]
I. LOVE. These. Threads.

They bring out all the people who are willing to jettison all sense and logic just to be able to hold onto their dick-that-goes-boom. HY-larious. Pathetic–and tragic, for the many people who die every year so you can have your assplodin strapons–but hilarious. Especially the part where you cloak what is essentially a psychological pathology in the melodramatic piety of the fucking Constitution.

Pathetic.
[/QUOTE]
Uh huh. I know this is the pit, but I’d think even you would be embarrassed to expel that kind of verbal diarrhea into a thread that had consisted largely of almost reasonable debate. Other people presumably on your side have offered more coherent defenses of their position - did you really think that feel-good holier-than-thou childish reduction-to-phallic-metaphors ejaculation was necessary? :dubious:

For the record, nearly all of us happily condone the violent sacrifice of fifty-thousand-odd innocents every year so we can drive to the fucking grocery store, and thousands more so we can have the privilege to get drunk off our asses. The ten thousand or so homicides with firearms each year are due mostly to poor control of handguns, not long rifles or .50 caliber weapons.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Besides, our sides the limp wristed wussies, its the other guys are the hairy-chested nut scratchers.
[/QUOTE]
As a gun-toting but puny bleeding-heart ethical vegetarian pinko liberal, I have to take issue with this assertion. :smiley:

151

[QUOTE=Eolbo]
Oh yes you mentioned it as stupid you just didn’t provide a shred of supporting evidence for your position and you still havent.
[/quote]

[snip]

I’m trying not to be insulting. I thought it was obvious.

Shooting airplanes on the tarmac is costly, but no more so than shooting people o the tarmac. Any good sport rifle can do the latter, and a .50 cal doesn’t actually have any range advantage in that case. Shoot a plane on the ground, and you might kill someone. You could do the exact same thing with a conventional firearm - or not firearm at all - in a thousand different ways, many of which are more spectacular (which presumably appeals to the terrorist mindset).

152

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

IOW you couldn’t find anyone who is acknowledged as a Constitutional scholar to back you up? Or (more likely, like me) you were too lazy to actually look? :stuck_out_tongue:

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll leave it. Its pretty clear that the anti-gun movement has been trying to circumvent both meaning and spirit of the 2nd Amendment for some time now. That folks can’t wrap their minds around the fact that, yeah, the FF really meant for private citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms says it all. From a historical perspective it really is a no-brainer. The more honest anti-gun types concede that things have simply changed (in their opinions) and so our society is different than that of America in the 18th century…so therefore the Constitution needs to change to reflect that. I don’t AGREE with this, mind…but its much more honest.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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]

Bluntly…horseshit. Even for the deluded anti-gun crowd this is plain bullshit. The fucking things says: “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.” While the first part of the thing is far from clear (as I said, it was part of a whole other section dealing with militias), the second half if about as clear as it gets…hardly ‘silent’. Read along with me here 'luci…‘the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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?
[/QUOTE]

My excuse being I actually wanted some insight into what the 2nd Amendment means perhaps? :stuck_out_tongue: Tell you what…as I said, I don’t want to get into all this here, but I’ll cut down the slog factor for you. Just read Madison’s writings concerning the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. Also, look up the original draft of the 2nd Amendment…you’ll be surprised I think on where the two parts came from, and what they actually meant there. Obviously you will be surprised since you still seem to be laboring under the delusion that the militia’s had anything to do with the rights of people to keep and bear arms.

If all this is too much for you, then simply look up the old article by Cecil on the 2nd Amendment…he does a good job in his 600 words or less in addressing this topic.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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!”
[/QUOTE]

Um…WTF is right. WTF are you talking about? Dissent? On whether or not Madison et al thought the people had a right to arms? No…not really. Maybe you don’t really know much about this subject.

Let me turn this about a bit…who do YOU think, that was one of the author’s of the 2nd Amendment, dissented on this subject? Or held the believe you obviously do? Or, er, something?

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Well, there is that. There are folk who ‘believe’ that the world is flat too. C’est la vie…guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree then. :stuck_out_tongue:

Out of curiosity, what do you base this on? Obviously its not an indepth knowledge of the historical contexts that the actual Amendment was written under. So…what?

[QUOTE=elucidator]
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…
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I don’t find DtC creepy at all…misguided, yes, but not creepy. Now, GONZOMAX, lowbrass…Der? Yeah, THEY are a bit creepy. :stuck_out_tongue:

That you (and your side) don’t acknowledge the center of my argument is not surprising. Some of you (obviously) do so from ignorance. Some however do it even knowing the facts…THOSE are the cowardly spinless ones IMHO.
Regardless (I’m guessing you are unconvinced) of the 2nd Amendment however, THIS particular law is, well, stupid. There is no reason to ban this guy. That YOU (and others) have no particular need for this weapon does not, in and of itself, mean the weapon merrits banning. I have no need for a (nor can I afford) a 100 foot yacht either but I seen no reason to ban them because of it (I’m guessing more folks die in boating accident a DECADE than are killed by this particular weapon also…just as an interesting observation :stuck_out_tongue: ).

There is no logical reason to ban this weapon except that some people find the weapon scary…and for political reasons. Do you disagree? If you don’t, why not give me a good reason that they SHOULD be banned then. I’ve yet to see anyone list a plausible reason for it. Public danger? The public is in more danger from falling of ladders each year. Aviation danger? I do believe that pilot error, statistically speaking, is more dangerous to the public on a yearly basis than this weapon has been…probably more dangerous on a yearly basis than this weapon has been in recorded history for that matter. Some ‘scaryness’ factor? Well, there I can’t help you…

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

153

[QUOTE=H3Knuckles]
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.
[/QUOTE]

This one’s a doozy. “Military grade weapons,” arguably designed to be more efficient at killing human beings than mere “hunting weapons” ( :rolleyes: ) lack self-defense applications?

154

[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]

One must admit, you have a way with words. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

That’s like saying a diarrhetic asshole has a way with a toilet bowl.

155

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
[snip]

Shooting airplanes on the tarmac is costly, but no more so than shooting people o the tarmac. Any good sport rifle can do the latter, and a .50 cal doesn’t actually have any range advantage in that case. Shoot a plane on the ground, and you might kill someone. You could do the exact same thing with a conventional firearm - or not firearm at all - in a thousand different ways, many of which are more spectacular (which presumably appeals to the terrorist mindset).
[/QUOTE]

Given that the aircraft our hypothetical terrorists would be most interested in will be an Airbus or Boeing packed with several hundred people, to shoot at the aircraft is to shoot at people. Except with the added bonus that your target is several hundred times bigger, vastly easier to hit and full of aviation fuel, with the bonus chance of possibly destroying or disabling an aircraft costing a couple of hundred million dollars.

Not something I’m worried about personally, but then again in an age when airlines and governments fuss over passengers taking toothpaste aboard an aircraft due to the terrorist threast posed by Colgate, its not a non-zero threat.

156

[QUOTE=xtisme]
IOW you couldn’t find anyone who is acknowledged as a Constitutional scholar to back you up? Or (more likely, like me) you were too lazy to actually look?..
[/quote]

Just as I said, I didn’t call on scholarly authority, you did. I don’t think I’m obliged to bring pie unless I claim to have it.

Right after you get in a few hundred last words, like Cher’s Farewell Tour.

As you insist. Don’t make it so.

So your opposition is either stupid or dishonest? No honest, intelligent person disagrees with you? Not one?

Why, yes, it does say that! What a revelation, XT, the scales fall from my eyes! Indeed, says the same thing it says the last thousand times I read those words.

But what, perzackly, is so “unclear” about those first few word? I don’t have any difficulty understanding them, they seem perfectly straightforward to me. But then I don’t have your problem, I don’t have to find a rationale to make them go away.

If I were to say “In order to prevent STDs, the people will be permitted to have rubbers”, most reasonable people would interpret that to mean that the people are to have rubbers to prevent STDs. You may believe that the purpose is so that people can make balloon animals, but that doesn’t follow from the text.

Because it says so. You keep insisting that it doesn’t matter that it says that, only the part that you find agreeable is relevent. No sale.

Even Homer nods.

Maybe. But I can read. And the words you would like to make go away are there. Plain as day.

I don’t get this part. Or as James Madison remarked to Tom Jefferson, “Wha? Huh?” Perhaps its best to draw a discreet veil over this disordered bit of rambling.

Doing rather a poor job of it, insisting that those who disagree with you must be either stupid or dishonest. “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because your are such a clot!” is not quite in the spirit of the thing, doncha know?

What it says, in plain English. You remember, read along with me now. "“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…” Yep, still there.

You forgot those who are neither ignorant nor cowardly, but simply think you are full of beans.

.
A whole nother argument on which I have no opinion to speak of. I confine myself to my point.

157

Guys, Lucy’s a dishonest debator. You don’t have to respond to him, he uses poor logic.

That said, military grade sidearms are precisely what the constitution is supposedly allowing. See: Miller. If the standard military sidearm becomes a fully automatic phaser pistol at some point in the future, it will be appropriate for a person to own one. And I suspect the ban on automatic weapons would be shut down, handily.

I may be wrong. It’s not important.

Neither are most of the arguments in this debate.

The important point here is that this rifle has never been used for terrorism, and in the places it is cited for terrorism, it is either not maximally efficient (Anti-aircraft fire, in the air), or significantly different from a normal sniper rifle designed for maximum range. (Aircraft on the ground, refineries)

Thus, this is a damn fool law.

Am I missing anything?

For either of these tasks, refinery or landed airplane damage, I would much rather use mortars, which are basically, a tube, a plate, and a shell. It’s not hard to build them, and while they’re less precise, they’re area effect explosives, and have a much heavier impact. And when you’re aiming at not moving objects, the precision can fall.

The added advantage is that a little trivial work with RC servos could make a remote guided or automated mortar… so I could set it off from way the hell and gone and not be at the other end of a gun.
Am I wrong here?

158

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]

Am I wrong here?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, you are. Guns are evil, and you’re not thinking of the children. Why do you hate Amerika?

159

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Can’t think of what civilian uses a gun like this would have.
[/QUOTE]
“The security of a free state” comes to mind.

There were undercover folks on both sides of the Fort Dix conspiracy. Makes you wonder if they would have started making such grandiose plans if not for a little egging on by their friendly neighborhood Federal mole. Or if they could have gotten the firepower hook-up if not for their unknown undercover social networking.

It’s also my understanding that they were offered .50cal and other more powerful weapons by the arms dealer, but weren’t interested.

Ban, under the pretext of terrorism, a weapon turned down as impractical by alleged terrorists. Makes perfect sense.

160

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Guys, Lucy’s a dishonest debator. You don’t have to respond to him, he uses poor logic…
[/QUOTE]

Step right up, anklebiter. You got it, bring it.