17 of 25
17
Gun control - again
Posted: 07 June 2013 09:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 241 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Many of LogicMans’s talking points seem to come right out of a NRA(or other gun rights org.) Public Relations playbook.
I can see them sitting at a seminar re-learning terms and expressions…
“OK, we no longer say High-Capacity magazines people, now the term is Standard Capacity.”
They also scurried to redefine the term “assault weapons”. Another nefarious sounding term that used to define any military style weapon that was semi-automatic
and had a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. Now they insist this is the term for fully automatic weapons used by the military. Although the military doesn’t use, or has never used the term “assault weapon”. They don’t want the term used because it is Bad P.R.
The way “Logic"man talks is so cleverly engineered to not reveal facts and to distort facts and causal dynamics.
It’s obviously “double talk” and propaganda designed to change the dialogue in a hostile gun legislation environment.

LogicMan-By “multiple round clips,” I am assuming you mean what are called “detachable box magazines.” Eliminating detachable box magazines would infringe severely on a person’s right to self-defense. Regarding limiting magazine size, there is a reason police like standard-capacity magazines in their guns. The hit ratio in shootouts is about 30% and it can take multiple shots to down a person, especially if they are high on a drug of some type, enraged, some combination of both, etc…

Here is a typical statement above that shows why people want to have semi-automatic guns with magazine counts higher than 10 rounds banned.
It would “infringe severely on a persons right to self defense.” In other words, these type guns and magazines do have more killing ability.
These type guns are more efficient at killing people. As far as self defense goes, that’s just more gun advocate propaganda. The vast majority of people
who defend themselves with guns have done it with guns that date back 100-150 years. Revolvers and shotguns. People have been successfully defending themselves with these type guns for a long time. There is no need for semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds. Except by the police or the military-as LogicMan has pointed out above. Note his use of the term “standard capacity magazine”.  That’s code for high capacity magazine.
There is no such thing as standard capacity magazine. All guns with detachable box magazines can be fitted with different capacity magazines. Some as low as 5 rounds. Some as high as 30, 40, or even 100 round drum fed magazines.

Lois - 19 May 2013 09:14 AM
Why do we have so many automatic weapon mass killings in the US if automatic weapons are outlawed and rare? Why does it seldom happen in countries with strict gun control, including thorough background checks?

Logic-Man-We don’t have many automatic weapon mass killings in the U.S. Sometimes the shooter uses a weapon that people think is automatic fire because of how it looks.

Above is another good example of the Gun Right Propagandists capitalizing on mis-communication.
People don’t think the weapon is automatic because of how it looks! They think the gun is automatic because essentially it is. In fact in regular gun parlance, automatic was given to mean semi-automatic many times.  In discussions, advertisements, and in technical speak.
Semi-automatic is practically the equivalent of fully automatic. In a semiautomatic weapon all functions of the guns mechanics are done automatically.
The only difference is, in fully automatic weapons a shooter can just keep the trigger depressed and the gun keeps shooting. In semi-automatic the shooter must pull the trigger back repeatedly. A very slight difference. All other functions are done automatically. Feeding, chambering, cocking, firing, extraction and ejection, and feeding again. Pull trigger and this repeats automatically.
A very high rate of fire..one that most experts agree is more deadly and efficient than fully automatic fire.
However when LogicMan saw some folks here refer to “automatic fire” he relished the opportunity to “dispel” people’s “misunderstanding”.
This is because he could deflect away from the obvious heat that semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds are potentially
going to take. And are already taking in states like New York. Because people are waking up to the fact that semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds can be used for horrific killings such as in Newtown, Aurora, and Columbine.
As far as self-defense goes, there is no evidence that these guns are any better for defending a person’s life or home. In fact the vast majority of people have
successfully defended themselves with small pistols, hunting shotguns or rifles. They have done this for hundreds of years now…without the need for military style semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2013 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 242 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  350
Joined  2008-09-10
LogicMan - 07 June 2013 12:04 AM
ciceronianus - 06 June 2013 09:25 AM

I think you’re trying a bit too hard here.  Do you really think those who drafted and voted for the Second Amendment thought that a “militia” is the same as “a general population”?  Or that “well-trained” means “armed”?  They would have to, you know, for your interesting translation to work.

Yes and yes. Read Federalist Paper 29 by Alexander Hamilton, where he talks about this. In it, he explains the, as he sees it, impossibility of maintaining a “well-regulated” militia (general population). But it is very clear what the word “militia” means there. And what else would “well-trained” mean? That people were supposed to be skilled at fighting only bare-handed? Also, keep in mind that there is a difference between organized and unorganized militia. Also read Federalist Paper 28

The early leaders of the government, state and federal, of our Glorious Republic, were not necessarily big fans of an armed populace.  Recall the Whiskey Rebellion and that of Daniel Shays and others.  They were quite aware of the dangers of an armed populace, when that populace disagreed with what they thought were their interests.  Thomas Jefferson, who was much involved in preparation of the First Amendment, sought to change the law of defamation so that truth would no longer be a defense.

The point is that claims regarding what the Founders thought and believed are not necessarily indicative of how the law or the Constitution should be interpreted.

The Founders very much believed in an armed populace. This is because they also were not trusting of governments as historically governments had moved towards tyranny. The population being armed to serve as a check on government, and also so that people could defend themselves, is one of the things that separated the republican philosophers such as Aristotle from the more statist-minded philosophers such as Plato. However you are correct that concern about insurrections and rebellions was held by them as well, and that is why the Constitution as written says that Congress can call forth the militia to put down insurrections.

Well, I don’t know.  What Hamilton seems to refer to is a body of citizens called to defend the nation, not overthrow its government because it is insufficiently righteous.  In other words, while not a standing army, it would be one that could be called upon to defend the United States or one of the States, therefore requiring training to do so, of course.  Not a group of citizens engaged in (hoping for?) battle against authorized agents of the elected government.  I very much doubt if the militia being referred to by Hamilton and others would include “militas” like those involved in what’s been called the modern “Militia Movement” for example.  Hamilton was very much in favor of a strong central government, and even proposed the president and senators would be elected for life, subject to good behavior, whatever that may mean.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2013 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 243 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3256
Joined  2011-08-15

I agree, but Madison wrote the law and the intent of the founding fathers was NOT to have an armed citizenry bent on the destruction of the existing government; that would constitute a mob. It was tried twice in that era, once by Daniel Shays and his MOB of armed citizens which came to nought and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pittsburg that our first President (never one for treasonous activity)  stomped the crap out of and proved to the armed citizenry that the central government won’t put up with disgruntled bumpkins with guns, be they “civilian or military” (splitting hairs argument again ho hum). I assure you that YOUR government, logic guy will defend itself against all enemies both foreign AND domestic if need be and has proven that time and time again, witness the 1967 riots put down by units of the National Guard armed with military weapons, M16s not shotguns and hunting rifles. Enough of this revisionist history and nitpicking semantics. I mean now you’re drawing in edged weapons and laughingly espousing how citizens of ancient Greece drug their hoplas and sarissas to the agora to buy veggies, OMG! Do some research man! Don’t just spout this speculative pseudo knowledge and expect your opponents not to be aware of the facts. Read anything by Peter Connolly, the premier historian on Greek and Roman warfare for starters and please stop blurring the lines between military and civilian weapons. BTW a “well regulated militia” means exactly that, regulated=controlled. Controlled by the state governments and a cadre of professionally trained officers for without them you have, you guessed it, a MOB!


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2013 01:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 244 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  350
Joined  2008-09-10

It seems there has been another shooting, in California this time.  Summon the well-regulated militia!  Time to sell more guns, I suppose.  There are times when this debate makes me weary and angry.

[ Edited: 07 June 2013 01:39 PM by ciceronianus ]
 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2013 05:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 245 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
VYAZMA - 07 June 2013 09:15 AM

Many of LogicMans’s talking points seem to come right out of a NRA(or other gun rights org.) Public Relations playbook.
I can see them sitting at a seminar re-learning terms and expressions…
“OK, we no longer say High-Capacity magazines people, now the term is Standard Capacity.”

That’s what they are. It is gun control people who decided to arbitrarily label anything over ten rounds as “high-capacity.”

They also scurried to redefine the term “assault weapons”. Another nefarious sounding term that used to define any military style weapon that was semi-automatic
and had a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds.

“Assault weapon” is a term that was made up by the gun control movement. And no it was not defined as any semiautomatic “military-style” weapon that had a magazine capacity of over ten rounds. Different states have had different definitions of “assault weapon.” It is whatever gun control people want it to be.

Now they insist this is the term for fully automatic weapons used by the military. Although the military doesn’t use, or has never used the term “assault weapon”. They don’t want the term used because it is Bad P.R.

No, the term for automatic fire rifles that fire intermediate power cartridges is assault rifle, not assault weapon. There’s a difference. An assault rifle is a specific term.

The way “Logic"man talks is so cleverly engineered to not reveal facts and to distort facts and causal dynamics.
It’s obviously “double talk” and propaganda designed to change the dialogue in a hostile gun legislation environment.

I don’t try to change the dialogue, I try to address people’s misconceptions.

Here is a typical statement above that shows why people want to have semi-automatic guns with magazine counts higher than 10 rounds banned.
It would “infringe severely on a persons right to self defense.” In other words, these type guns and magazines do have more killing ability.
These type guns are more efficient at killing people. As far as self defense goes, that’s just more gun advocate propaganda. The vast majority of people
who defend themselves with guns have done it with guns that date back 100-150 years. Revolvers and shotguns. People have been successfully defending themselves with these type guns for a long time. There is no need for semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds. Except by the police or the military-as LogicMan has pointed out above. Note his use of the term “standard capacity magazine”.  That’s code for high capacity magazine.

Nope, it is the term for the magazine capacity that the gun was designed to handle. And people going back 100 to 150 years had to make due with the guns and weapons of the time. Before guns existed, people made due with knives and axes and swords. Doesn’t mean that those were the optimal weapons to have. Also back 100 years ago, there was not a concern of criminals being high on drugs like today.

There is no such thing as standard capacity magazine. All guns with detachable box magazines can be fitted with different capacity magazines. Some as low as 5 rounds. Some as high as 30, 40, or even 100 round drum fed magazines.

Most guns are designed to be fitted with a magazine of a specific capacity. Changing the magazine size can impede the gun’s performance if it is not designed to handle said magazine. So yes, there are very much standard capacity magazines. “High-capacity” magazine is whatever gun control people want it to be.

Above is another good example of the Gun Right Propagandists capitalizing on mis-communication.
People don’t think the weapon is automatic because of how it looks! They think the gun is automatic because essentially it is. In fact in regular gun parlance, automatic was given to mean semi-automatic many times.  In discussions, advertisements, and in technical speak.
Semi-automatic is practically the equivalent of fully automatic. In a semiautomatic weapon all functions of the guns mechanics are done automatically.
The only difference is, in fully automatic weapons a shooter can just keep the trigger depressed and the gun keeps shooting. In semi-automatic the shooter must pull the trigger back repeatedly. A very slight difference. All other functions are done automatically. Feeding, chambering, cocking, firing, extraction and ejection, and feeding again. Pull trigger and this repeats automatically.

You could say that pump-actions and lever-actions are practically the equivalent of fully-automatic by that standard, since you can fire them at the same rate as a semiautomatic. Semiautomatic is not “practically the same” as automatic fire, because you cannot fire a semiautomatic at the same rate as an automatic fire weapon.

A very high rate of fire..one that most experts agree is more deadly and efficient than fully automatic fire.
However when LogicMan saw some folks here refer to “automatic fire” he relished the opportunity to “dispel” people’s “misunderstanding”.

I do not “relish” anything, I just was correcting a common misconception.

This is because he could deflect away from the obvious heat that semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds are potentially
going to take. And are already taking in states like New York. Because people are waking up to the fact that semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds can be used for horrific killings such as in Newtown, Aurora, and Columbine.

Standard gun control thinking: “Ban automatic fire weapons!” Then you point out that this is already the case for the most part. “Then ban semiautomatics, those are too dangerous!” Beforehand, semiautomatics were not even on their mind until the saw that the weapons they want controlled already are.

As far as self-defense goes, there is no evidence that these guns are any better for defending a person’s life or home. In fact the vast majority of people have
successfully defended themselves with small pistols, hunting shotguns or rifles. They have done this for hundreds of years now…without the need for military style semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds.

The pistols, shotguns, and rifles people have used for over one hundred years now were “military-style” by the standards of the time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2013 05:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 246 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
ciceronianus - 07 June 2013 12:07 PM

Well, I don’t know.  What Hamilton seems to refer to is a body of citizens called to defend the nation, not overthrow its government because it is insufficiently righteous.  In other words, while not a standing army, it would be one that could be called upon to defend the United States or one of the States, therefore requiring training to do so, of course.  Not a group of citizens engaged in (hoping for?) battle against authorized agents of the elected government.  I very much doubt if the militia being referred to by Hamilton and others would include “militas” like those involved in what’s been called the modern “Militia Movement” for example.  Hamilton was very much in favor of a strong central government, and even proposed the president and senators would be elected for life, subject to good behavior, whatever that may mean.

Hamilton meant both a body of citizens called to defend the nation and to serve as a check on the government. Federalist Paper 28:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rules, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.

However, Hamilton also spoke about the risks inherent in the possibility of insurrections from various groups as well (which the militia was also to serve as a check on). BTW, the fact that Hamilton was for such a strong central government but was also adamant about right to arms only shows just how strong the belief in arms to serve as a check on government and for self-defense was in the Founders.

[ Edited: 08 June 2013 06:03 AM by LogicMan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2013 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 247 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Thevillageatheist - 07 June 2013 12:38 PM

I agree, but Madison wrote the law and the intent of the founding fathers was NOT to have an armed citizenry bent on the destruction of the existing government; that would constitute a mob. It was tried twice in that era, once by Daniel Shays and his MOB of armed citizens which came to nought and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pittsburg that our first President (never one for treasonous activity)  stomped the crap out of and proved to the armed citizenry that the central government won’t put up with disgruntled bumpkins with guns, be they “civilian or military” (splitting hairs argument again ho hum).

Don’t confuse having an armed citizenry that can serve as a check on a tyrannical government as being the same as saying said armed citizenry has a right to just go and overthrow the government whenever it pleases. Hamilton spoke against such actions as well.

I assure you that YOUR government, logic guy will defend itself against all enemies both foreign AND domestic if need be and has proven that time and time again, witness the 1967 riots put down by units of the National Guard armed with military weapons, M16s not shotguns and hunting rifles. Enough of this revisionist history and nitpicking semantics. I mean now you’re drawing in edged weapons and laughingly espousing how citizens of ancient Greece drug their hoplas and sarissas to the agora to buy veggies, OMG! Do some research man! Don’t just spout this speculative pseudo knowledge and expect your opponents not to be aware of the facts. Read anything by Peter Connolly, the premier historian on Greek and Roman warfare for starters and please stop blurring the lines between military and civilian weapons.

Sure the government will defend itself. it has to. I wouldn’t want some random mob overthrowing it. Where the people being armed comes into play is if the government itself turns into something like the Assad regime. Also, where did I claim that citizens of ancient Greece carrier weapons everywhere? I said that part of citizenship was keeping arms to serve as a check on government and also to defend the state. I am sure you’ve heard of the stand at Thermopylae? That was a force of thousands of Greek citizen-soldiers, led by the professional Spartan force, who maintained a full-time military, against the Persians.

And I’m not blurring the lines between “civilian” and “military” weapons. With regards to arms, “civilian” and “military” are one and the same. They have been throughout history and up into modern times. Sure there are weapons that are used solely by the military, but arms are tools of war that happen to be used by the military, but also by law enforcement and civilians.

BTW a “well regulated militia” means exactly that, regulated=controlled. Controlled by the state governments and a cadre of professionally trained officers for without them you have, you guessed it, a MOB!

This has been thoroughly refuted by many scholars for a long time now, as I have already explained. It had nothing to do with state governments. Do you really think the Founders would have just randomly stuck a collective right into the Bill of Rights amongst a bunch of other individual rights? And then used the language to describe said supposedly collective right when everywhere else in the Constitution, that same language is used to describe individual rights? You also miss the part of Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 where the Congress is authorized to organize and train the militia in times of need. So no, it does not constitute a mob.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2013 06:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 248 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3333
Joined  2011-11-04

Hey, how come the crazy man in Santa Monica, yesterday, used an AR 15?  Did he not know that an AR 15 is not an “assault rifle” and is “not designed to kill people”?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2013 07:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 249 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  350
Joined  2008-09-10
TimB - 08 June 2013 06:16 AM

Hey, how come the crazy man in Santa Monica, yesterday, used an AR 15?  Did he not know that an AR 15 is not an “assault rifle” and is “not designed to kill people”?

Perhaps he was simply trying to correct a misconception, by demonstrating that such a firearm need not be used to kill many people as at Sandy Hook, but may instead kill a much smaller number, and so the concern regarding large magazines is without basis.

 Signature 

“Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain.” 
—F. Schiller

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2013 07:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 250 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
TimB - 08 June 2013 06:16 AM

Hey, how come the crazy man in Santa Monica, yesterday, used an AR 15?  Did he not know that an AR 15 is not an “assault rifle” and is “not designed to kill people”?

What point are you trying to make? He could’ve used a handgun too, just like the Virginia Tech shooter did and the Fort Hood shooter did to kill more people. Also, you seem to be trying to claim that because I said that no gun is specifically engineered to kill people, that this is supposed to mean the gun cannot be used to kill people or something. The point here is basic science. Humans are animals. This distinction between “animals” and “humans” gun control advocates, who are usually progressives, make, I find very interesting, considering they are usually the ones who are criticizing the political right-wing for ignoring evolution. If you believe in evolution, humans are animals. We’re a high-functioning ape. So if the gun can be used to kill coyotes, wolves, hogs, deer, bear, etc…it can be used to kill the animals called humans as well. And vice-versa.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2013 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 251 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3333
Joined  2011-11-04
LogicMan - 08 June 2013 07:23 AM
TimB - 08 June 2013 06:16 AM

Hey, how come the crazy man in Santa Monica, yesterday, used an AR 15?  Did he not know that an AR 15 is not an “assault rifle” and is “not designed to kill people”?

What point are you trying to make?

 

Obviously, my point, satirical in nature, is aimed at, what I consider to be, overblown attempts to ban the use of the word “assault” as a descriptor for any gun, and also aimed at the more clearly fallacious claim that there is no such thing as a gun that has been designed for a primary purpose of killing people.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2013 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 252 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3333
Joined  2011-11-04
ciceronianus - 08 June 2013 07:19 AM
TimB - 08 June 2013 06:16 AM

Hey, how come the crazy man in Santa Monica, yesterday, used an AR 15?  Did he not know that an AR 15 is not an “assault rifle” and is “not designed to kill people”?

Perhaps he was simply trying to correct a misconception, by demonstrating that such a firearm need not be used to kill many people as at Sandy Hook, but may instead kill a much smaller number, and so the concern regarding large magazines is without basis.

Perhaps so, in which case, I was wrong in my initial assumption that he was likely a homicidal maniac, when in actuality, he may have just been a particularly avid pro gun rights advocate.  I should apologize to his family (those that he didn’t kill, anyway) for my hasty assumption.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2013 07:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 253 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
TimB - 08 June 2013 06:16 AM

Hey, how come the crazy man in Santa Monica, yesterday, used an AR 15?  Did he not know that an AR 15 is not an “assault rifle” and is “not designed to kill people”?

Well actually Tim he confused his AR-15 for a shotgun(because all guns are essentially the same.). But he didn’t think that would matter because the gun he chose wasn’t designed to kill people, so he felt he had nothing to worry about.
Plus he confused those people for animals too, because humans and animals are all animals anyways..

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2013 08:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 254 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Ok let’s get ready to filter out the lies and double-talk…

That’s what they are. It is gun control people who decided to arbitrarily label anything over ten rounds as “high-capacity.”

On this point, I’m not going to play your semantics game.  I don’t care who coined what phrase.  I’m sick of playing 7th grade level games with you.
The law is going to label them high capacity.  When they’re banned one day you can sit around and pine for the good ‘ole days of “standard capacity magazines”.

“Assault weapon” is a term that was made up by the gun control movement. And no it was not defined as any semiautomatic “military-style” weapon that had a magazine capacity of over ten rounds. Different states have had different definitions of “assault weapon.” It is whatever gun control people want it to be.

You’re just an encyclopedia of useless semantic information that is subjective and unverifiable aren’t you?

No, the term for automatic fire rifles that fire intermediate power cartridges is assault rifle, not assault weapon. There’s a difference. An assault rifle is a specific term.

I’m so glad I have you here to correct my misconceptions.

I don’t try to change the dialogue, I try to address people’s misconceptions.

Yeah, right.  What kind of audience you think you have here? You weren’t counting on running into folks here who know more about guns than you do were ya?
So far you have stated some tertiary facts that do not orbit any of our main debate points. Like the Russian Hunting dog crap for instance.
The rest of your garbage has been half truths and boggy quibbles about semantics. And partially correct technical details that have nothing to do with the debate.
Because for me, the debate isn’t about whether humans are animals, or what term one uses to describe the capacity of magazines, or how military weapons have always been used by civilians and they are essentially the same. Do you really think anyone buys that garbage here?
But, let’s say that we take an AR-15. There are 10 round magazines, 20, 30 and even drum magazines which hold up to 100 rounds. Which one of those capacities is the standard size? Let me guess you are going to say they are all standard capacity?  Really? 
I have never, ever heard the term “standard capacity magazines”

Nope, it is the term for the magazine capacity that the gun was designed to handle.

Hey!  You’re confusing adjectives with nouns here!! “High Capacity/Standard Capacity magazine” is a noun!!!  “High Capacity/Standard magazine
isn’t a term used to describe what a gun can handle.  It’s a physical box that holds bullets.  What is the standard capacity of that box? All semi-autos can handle various capacity magazines. Which one is standard? There isn’t one!!  There are just magazines that hold over 10 rounds-those are what we call high capacity magazines.

Most guns are designed to be fitted with a magazine of a specific capacity. Changing the magazine size can impede the gun’s performance if it is not designed to handle said magazine. So yes, there are very much standard capacity magazines. “High-capacity” magazine is whatever gun control people want it to be.

This is generally a lie from you.  All semi-automatic guns that are assault weapon types can take magazines with varying capacities. In fact usually the gunmaker provides options in this regard. For example Ruger and Colt both manufacture magazines that go as low as 5 rounds up to 30 rounds.
The 20 and 30 round magazines are high capacity magazines.  Because they hold higher amounts of bullets than say a standard 5 round magazine.
That’s why they are called high capacity. Lot’s of bullets=high capacity!  It’s real simple math really.

You could say that pump-actions and lever-actions are practically the equivalent of fully-automatic by that standard, since you can fire them at the same rate as a semiautomatic. Semiautomatic is not “practically the same” as automatic fire, because you cannot fire a semiautomatic at the same rate as an automatic fire weapon.

No, nobody can say that, because pumps and levers or bolt actions cannot be fired anywhere’s near as fast as a modern-semi-automatic weapon.  You’re just lying here. You’re flat out lying. And don’t bother citing Cowboy Action Circus performers with tricked out guns and 8 hours of practice a day.
Nobody, anywhere can fire a pump or lever or bolt as fast as an AR15 or any other semi-automatic gun with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds.
That’s why no one is bringing pumps or levers to mass shootings!

I do not “relish” anything, I just was correcting a common misconception.

Right like all guns are essentially the same, animals are humans, and there is no difference between military weapons and civilian guns.

Standard gun control thinking: “Ban automatic fire weapons!” Then you point out that this is already the case for the most part. “Then ban semiautomatics, those are too dangerous!” Beforehand, semiautomatics were not even on their mind until the saw that the weapons they want controlled already are.

I don’t understand WTF this even means.

The pistols, shotguns, and rifles people have used for over one hundred years now were “military-style” by the standards of the time.

Yeah, I know…you’ve tried to impart that crap already. For over 100 years now? So 20 years ago civilians were using the same weapons as the military?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 June 2013 12:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 255 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  266
Joined  2012-09-14

To be quite honest, I think the government should be worrying about other aspects of our society beyond gun control.  Experts dispute the effectiveness of gun control, but there is more ways than one to reduce crime.

Social norms also have a big impact on crime rate.

See this link (copy-paste do NOT click)

(((http://books.google.com/books?id=jeN4K2BhmB0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cross-national+crime:+a+research+review+and+sourcebook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BYGzUeaEMZHPqwGk7YHQBA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=in an intensive study of ten nations with very low rates of crime, including&f=false)))

Granted some of these countries are criticized for being a little too strict in some aspects, but our government should seriously give this data serious consideration.
( fora criticism of one country in the above link see http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-counselor/adapting-to-life-in-a-new-country/456446-depression-in-a-new-country.html )
but

[ Edited: 08 June 2013 12:19 PM by I.J. Abdul Hakeem ]
 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
   
17 of 25
17
 
‹‹ Korea      Rand Paul at Howard U. ››