7 of 25
7
Gun control - again
Posted: 26 May 2013 08:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
VYAZMA - 26 May 2013 03:39 AM

LogicMan, I give you credit for standing up to your beliefs.  Thank you for not further retorting with more rhetoric and obfuscation.(for the most part)
Although I vehemently disagree with you, you have maintained a coolness and directness in responding to my provocative response.

Thanks!

You do however maintain some rather shaky justifications and taxonomies regarding weapon types.
I find your comparison with animals and humans being the same with regards to firearms kind of tacky.
You also didn’t give a good enough rebuttal to my contention that military weapons are not best for hunting.  They aren’t! If you don’t know that, you don’t know guns. The counter about what’s ideal for who, being an arbitrary thing is irrelevant and distraction.

How is it tacky? Humans are animals. We’re a very brainy upright walking ape. If a gun can be used to kill a variety of non-human animals, it can most definitely be used to kill a human and vice-versa. Military guns make fine hunting weapons, which is why historically, most purpose-built hunting and sporting rifles have been derived from military designs, and the practice of adopting military guns for civilian purposes such as self-defense and hunting goes back to the days of the Revolution.

There are plenty of hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols which are ideal for hunting and target shooting. They are easily accessible, economic, and made specifically for hunting/target. Don’t bother disputing this with me.

Sure there are. And every one of them could be modified to be more robust to make for a fine military gun too. Also remember that the right to keep arms isn’t about those things though.

Obviously I don’t subscribe to the beleaguered citizen in distress scenario where thousands of good gun owners will defend themselves against a tyrannical govt.
In fact, that crap is real shallow and Hollywood.  Years of Hollywood conditioning.

As said, no one can predict the future. Peaceful civil resistance would always be the first thing to do. Violent resistance is only a last-ditch option. The people having arms serves as the ultimate deterrent to such a government. It’s kind of like nations having nuclear bombs, it serves as an ultimate deterrent.

VYAZMA - 26 May 2013 09:03 AM

I’m not making definitions. You are.  It doesn’t matter what you call them.  Just as long as magazines with capacities over 10 rounds are banned.  That means no importation of magazines with capacities over 10 rounds, no domestic sales of said magazines(except for law enforcement or military), no trading, no Grandfather Clause, no exhibition of said magazines, no use of said magazines, no parts sales for said magazines, no modification kits for magazines to increase capacity.

Nope, calling anything over ten rounds “high-capacity” is something made-up. However, if you want to argue the number of rounds itself, fine, but I argue against it, for the reasons I have stated above.

The law should confiscate all magazines on site and impose a fine for usage. An amnesty program should be set-up and said magazines should be turned in for monetary compensation.  The remainder of said magazines can be quietly hoarded by wing-nuts while they await the Second Coming. After 100 or so years, these magazines will have vanished.  The remainder will be mostly obsolete or worn out. Problem solved!

And also people’s rights infringed upon. People like magazines of over ten rounds for the same reasons police and military do, as they face the criminals police do.

I did say that from the get-go.  You’re trying to confuse people with comparisons of assault rifles and weapons and full-automatic fire etc.
I’m trying to clarify to my fellow gun control advocates that it is simple: Outlaw all guns that are semi-automatic and have a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. It’s that simple

Okay fine, if that is your argument, then I disagree with it via my arguments made in prior posts. However I am not trying to confuse people at all. It is important people know what the terminology means on this issue.

My fellow Gun control advocates don’t need to be confused with all these tongue in cheek rednecks and gun-nut whackjobs and NRA sycophants confusing them with meandering discussions about pistol grip fore-ends, or flash hiders, or collapsible stocks etc. That’s all tertiary at best! The NRA sycophants know it too.

It isn’t rednecks or gun nuts (BTW, why are people who defend one part of the Constitution considered nuts but people who uncompromisingly defend other parts of the Constitution, for example the ACLU, respected?) who seek to confuse with this issue, it is gun control who often mislead otherwise well-meaning people with such terminology. You are right, pistol grips, flash hiders, collapsible stocks, etc…are tertiary, so why make laws labeling guns with such features as “assault weapons” and then demonize those who are against such laws?

You would love nothing more than to go round and round explaining to all of these good people on here what the definition of an assault rifle is. Because for alot of them it is out of their knowledge scope. So you can confuse them and turn the tables on focal points! No No No….just ban all guns that are semi-automatic and have magazine capacities of over 10 rounds. That covers everything!  Pistols, shotguns and rifles all in one swoop. And it leaves untouched every conceivable gun one might need to hunt, target shoot or even defend their home with.

Explaining things to people is about clearing up misconceptions, not confusing people. And you ban semiautomatics and limit it to ten round magazines, then you end up with lever-actions and pump-actions getting banned as well at some point. Gun control proponents will always find ways to build on prior gun control legislation.

(I hate to quibble about this here, I should have mentioned this aways back, shotgun magazines should be limited to 5 rounds. You know, like a regular Model 37 or an 1100…nobody needs more capacity than that to hunt with.)

Textbook example here! You say limit guns to ten round fixed magazines and then say shotguns should be limited to five rounds, because that’s all one “needs” for “hunting” (which again is not what the right to keep and bear arms is about).

This is rich.  Too much Hollywood again!

Really? so why do police officers carry guns? What about all of the incidences each year involving home break-ins and crimes. There is nothing “Hollywood” about it. 

I would hope not. I wouldn’t go for pumps or levers being banned. Or 5 round semi-automatic shotguns or revolvers or semi-automatic pistols with magazines that hold 10 rounds or less. In fact, the 10 round rotary mag in a Ruger 10/22 .22 LR or even the 15 or 18 round tube magazine Marlin .22 LRs could be allowed to stay. But no 50 round drums or extensions or any of that other happy horse crap….even for .22LR!

.22s are more plinking guns, good for target practice, not hunting or self-defense. Also, you need to be more clear, as you’ve said you want all semiautomatics banned, now you say you are okay with some semiautomatics. But there are plenty of people who would say the pump and lever actions should be banned also. And then that the bolt-actions should be strictly regulated as they also serve as sniper rifles.

You just said the reason alot of people own guns is because they may NEED to kill someone.  Sounds like a need to me.
If the right to bear arms isn’t predicated on a need, then what is it predicated on?

What is meant is that one doesn’t have to demonstrate a specific need to own a gun, no more than one needs to demonstrate a need to own a textbook on say chemistry. However, one of the reasons people will own guns is for self-defense.

Do you mean: “why do I think the police use magazines with capacities over 10 rounds?” Those magazines may be standard for police, but they should not be standard for civilians. I already said civilians don’t need magazines that hold over 10 rounds.  None of those magazines will be standard for civilians or civilian purchased guns when they are outlawed.

In addition to the right not predicated on need, but why wouldn’t civilians need such magazines? Police need them, so why wouldn’t civilians? Who are you to decide this?

Don’t need a Constitutional convention. New York didn’t need one. Just have to place limits and more restrictions on existing rights and privileges.
Make Semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities of over 10 rounds accessible only to De-Luxe Permit holders. Yessir!
1 year waiting period per gun. Extensive background checks, huge permit fees..2 to 3 thousand dollars per gun say…oh yeah. That will reduce the amount of slack-jawed gun-toting morons out there.

Thus far, none of those “slack-jawed gun-toting morons” (BTW you may not realize it, but there is an element of bigotry in your views on gun owners it seems—-you should stop being so judgemental) have been involved in mass shootings. All of the mass shootings have involved people who were clearly mentally ill, with the exception for Nidal Hasan, for whom it was religious, and then that cop in California who was full of praise for President Obama.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 08:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
macgyver - 26 May 2013 08:00 PM

A majority of who?

The American people.

When you ask the public they want background checks. It was a majority of politicians who voted it down and they don’t necessarily ( and in this case not at all) represent the will of the majority. They represent the people who will get them elected and if they believe the NRA can get them booted out they will vote with the NRA even if its not what their constituents want because the NRA will use their money to spin things against their enemies come election time.

The problem I’d say for such legislation is actually the opposite: rather than politicians voting against their constituents, they voted with their constituents. National polls can be irrelevant on issues like this when it comes to how individual Congresspeople will vote. Also keep in mind as well that we are a republic, not a democracy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 08:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

.22s are more plinking guns, good for target practice, not hunting or self-defense. Also, you need to be more clear, as you’ve said you want all semiautomatics banned, now you say you are okay with some semiautomatics. But there are plenty of people who would say the pump and lever actions should be banned also. And then that the bolt-actions should be strictly regulated as they also serve as sniper rifles.

I thought this was going to crop up.  What have I been saying?  Ban all weapons that are semi-automatic AND have a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds.
I never said I wanted to ban semi-autos by themselves.
And yes, all weapons that can take magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would be outlawed even if their magazines are banned too.
So ARs and AKs and Mini-14s for examples should be outlawed.
4 shot Remington semi-automatic hunting rifles or shotguns that hold 5 or less rounds are ok by me. Same with the Colt 1911. It’s semi-automatic but it only holds 8 rounds.  That’s fine by me. These type weapons don’t need to banned.  I stated that in so many words already above.
And yes, I conceded a discussion point about the capacity of factory standard .22s such as the Marlins.  But only in .22 LR and only factory standard specs.
This is called a little wiggle room…in the debate. A little.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2013 11:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

You do however maintain some rather shaky justifications and taxonomies regarding weapon types.
I find your comparison with animals and humans being the same with regards to firearms kind of tacky.
You also didn’t give a good enough rebuttal to my contention that military weapons are not best for hunting.  They aren’t! If you don’t know that, you don’t know guns. The counter about what’s ideal for who, being an arbitrary thing is irrelevant and distraction.

LogicMan-How is it tacky? Humans are animals. We’re a very brainy upright walking ape. If a gun can be used to kill a variety of non-human animals, it can most definitely be used to kill a human and vice-versa. Military guns make fine hunting weapons, which is why historically, most purpose-built hunting and sporting rifles have been derived from military designs, and the practice of adopting military guns for civilian purposes such as self-defense and hunting goes back to the days of the Revolution.

There are plenty of hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols which are ideal for hunting and target shooting. They are easily accessible, economic, and made specifically for hunting/target. Don’t bother disputing this with me.

LogicMan-Sure there are. And every one of them could be modified to be more robust to make for a fine military gun too. Also remember that the right to keep arms isn’t about those things though.

You know I get the feeling that here in these quotes and in others, you’re attempting to muddy the waters between military weapons and civilian guns.
You wouldn’t be doing that would you?
Because trying to blur the line between what’s acceptable for civilians to have and what is acceptable for the police and the military to have would be a method of deception on your part. “Let’s try to blur the line between civilian sporting arms and military/military style arms.” Right?  That’s your strategy!
I see right through your strategy and talking points…I hope others do too.
Let me guess, you’re going to say: “No that isn’t my strategy, I just want people to have the right information.”
You are feeding those who will listen misinformation!

[ Edited: 26 May 2013 11:20 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2013 12:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

In case folks have forgotten, the recent failed bill to require background checks, failed despite overwhelming public support, BUT ALSO FAILED IN THE SENATE WITH A MAJORITY OF SENATORS VOTING FOR IT.  56 YEA - 46 NAY

With the constant use of the bastardized filibuster rules, the Republicans can and have been very consistently preventing any potentially productive legislation from being passed.

Our legislative system is being controlled by an extremist minority, and it will apparently continue to be thus, until a supermajority of Democrats are voted in.  If Independent voters come to recognize this, the dysfunctional Republican strategy may backfire.  So, go for it, all you extreme gun advocates and your once relatively honored American Institution, the NRA.  Keep trampling on the will of the majority. Eventually you will jump the shark.

 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: 27 May 2013 04:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3154
Joined  2011-08-15

You know I get the feeling that here in these quotes and in others, you’re attempting to muddy the waters between military weapons and civilian guns.
You wouldn’t be doing that would you?
Because trying to blur the line between what’s acceptable for civilians to have and what is acceptable for the police and the military to have would be a method of deception on your part. “Let’s try to blur the line between civilian sporting arms and military/military style arms.” Right?  That’s your strategy!

I did as well Vy and I had a detailed line by line refutation of his reply to me when something happened on my end or the forum site robbed me of my postings. Meantime I’m switching to my laptop. The whole concept that civilian weapons are military weapons is ludicrous, for instance no trained combat soldier would ever arm himself with my bolt action H&R 410 shotgun or my dueling pistol for that matter. Conversely, no one would go hunting with a BAR. My father carried one in World War II. They weigh twenty pounds and have to be carried on a sling. I know, I’ve held and shot one. There’s absolutely no way I’d ever hunt with one. He’s reaching here. More when I can figure out my problem with multiple posts.

 

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

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

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2013 06:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

.....or my dueling pistol for that matter. Conversely, no one would go hunting with a BAR. My father carried one in World War II. They weigh twenty pounds and have to be carried on a sling. I know, I’ve held and shot one. There’s absolutely no way I’d ever hunt with one. He’s reaching here. More when I can figure out my problem with multiple posts.

Cap’t Jack

Yes I’m glad you mention it too.  Of course if reasonable people are able to make the distinction between sporting arms and military arms(or arms that are semi-automatic and have a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds) then a more clear picture can be presented to the public on which arms are reasonable for civilians to have and which arms are unreasonable for civilians to have.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2013 09:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
VYAZMA - 26 May 2013 08:44 PM

I thought this was going to crop up.  What have I been saying?  Ban all weapons that are semi-automatic AND have a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds.
I never said I wanted to ban semi-autos by themselves.
And yes, all weapons that can take magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would be outlawed even if their magazines are banned too.
So ARs and AKs and Mini-14s for examples should be outlawed.
4 shot Remington semi-automatic hunting rifles or shotguns that hold 5 or less rounds are ok by me. Same with the Colt 1911. It’s semi-automatic but it only holds 8 rounds.  That’s fine by me. These type weapons don’t need to banned.  I stated that in so many words already above.
And yes, I conceded a discussion point about the capacity of factory standard .22s such as the Marlins.  But only in .22 LR and only factory standard specs.
This is called a little wiggle room…in the debate. A little.

The problem with your arguments on this is that it is all very arbitrary. It’s like saying that anyone who makes over $300K a year should be taxed at 90%. Who decides that number? How is it arrived at? Similarly, the ten round limitation for magazines and the four round limitation for semiautomatic hunting rifles (which are no different than semiautomatic military rifles BTW) and the five round limitation for shotguns. How are these numbers arrived at? It is all just arbitrarily chosen by yourself.

VYAZMA - 26 May 2013 11:17 PM

There are plenty of hunting rifles, shotguns, and even pistols which are ideal for hunting and target shooting. They are easily accessible, economic, and made specifically for hunting/target. Don’t bother disputing this with me.

I can very much dispute it. Ultimately, a gun is a gun. You use a shotgun to shoot at an enemy soldier, you can use it for hunting, and vice-versa. A semiautomatic .223 hunting rifle is no different in its ability to kill than a semiautomatic rifle like the AR-15 (BTW AR-15s and Kalashnikovs are among the most economical of all guns, in particular AR-15s, which is why they make up 50% of all gun sales).

You know I get the feeling that here in these quotes and in others, you’re attempting to muddy the waters between military weapons and civilian guns.
You wouldn’t be doing that would you?
Because trying to blur the line between what’s acceptable for civilians to have and what is acceptable for the police and the military to have would be a method of deception on your part. “Let’s try to blur the line between civilian sporting arms and military/military style arms.” Right?  That’s your strategy!
I see right through your strategy and talking points…I hope others do too.
Let me guess, you’re going to say: “No that isn’t my strategy, I just want people to have the right information.”
You are feeding those who will listen misinformation!

Refute my points then. Because what you’re engaging in here is to just essentially call me a liar without actually explaining how.

1) How exactly are “military” guns and “police” guns different from “civilian” guns? If there is a difference, then why is it that all of the most common firearms that have been used by civilians for decades, over one hundred years even in some cases, are identical to the ones the military and law enforcement uses?

2) What exactly makes “civilian” use of a firearm any different from “military” and “police” use of a firearm? In both cases, the primary usage would be for war. A civilian engaging in self-defense with a firearm will do so in the event that another individual is making war on them. Tell me, why do you think a police officer is trained to shoot a person until they drop if said person pulls a knife on the police officer? It’s because if you pull a knife on a cop, it’s not to “fight” or “resist,” it is essentially a declaration of war. It means you’re going to try to kill the police officer. And that is why the police carry the basic tools of war, firearms. Civilian use is no different.

3) “Law enforcement” use of a firearm, in particular, is identical to a civilian, because law enforcement are trained to fight defensively, not offensively. One could thus even raise the question of why do the police need these “military” types of guns when police are not supposed to be a militarized force. The reason is because guns are guns. They are basic tools of war.

4) SWAT teams make use of AR-15s because they are safer weapons with regards to the safety of the general public with regards to wall penetration issues.

[ Edited: 27 May 2013 09:59 AM by LogicMan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2013 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
TimB - 27 May 2013 12:16 AM

In case folks have forgotten, the recent failed bill to require background checks, failed despite overwhelming public support, BUT ALSO FAILED IN THE SENATE WITH A MAJORITY OF SENATORS VOTING FOR IT.  56 YEA - 46 NAY

Again, there is no proof that that particular bill had “overwhelming” public support.

With the constant use of the bastardized filibuster rules, the Republicans can and have been very consistently preventing any potentially productive legislation from being passed.

Just because one side says the legislation is good doesn’t make it so. And Democrats like the filibuster when its the Republicans with control and trying to push through legislation that the Democrats do not approve of. BTW, Democrats are not above partisan tricks either, look at how they passed the Affordable Care Act.

Our legislative system is being controlled by an extremist minority, and it will apparently continue to be thus, until a supermajority of Democrats are voted in.  If Independent voters come to recognize this, the dysfunctional Republican strategy may backfire.  So, go for it, all you extreme gun advocates and your once relatively honored American Institution, the NRA.  Keep trampling on the will of the majority. Eventually you will jump the shark.

It is still never explained how exactly the gun rights people are an “extremist minority” or how if such a minority, they are able to control the legislative process so much. And people approve of the NRA more today than in the past.

[ Edited: 27 May 2013 10:11 AM by LogicMan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2013 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Thevillageatheist - 27 May 2013 04:53 AM

I did as well Vy and I had a detailed line by line refutation of his reply to me when something happened on my end or the forum site robbed me of my postings. Meantime I’m switching to my laptop. The whole concept that civilian weapons are military weapons is ludicrous, for instance no trained combat soldier would ever arm himself with my bolt action H&R 410 shotgun or my dueling pistol for that matter.

I have already given multiple examples of how the same guns soldiers use are the exact same ones civilians have been using for decades, and in some cases, over one-hundred years now, so no, it is not ludicrous by any means. A soldier will not use a bolt-action shotgun unless there is a need for such a weapon in the modern military. Pump-action shotguns are what soldiers have been using since WWI and they were invented in 1898. But in terms of your bolt-action shotgun’s ability to kill when fired at a human, there is no reason a soldier couldn’t make use of it if they had to.

And again, the practice of adopting military guns for civilian purposes goes back to the days of the Revolution. All modern big-game hunting rifles are the equivalent of “high-powered sniper rifles.” They can be used for the same purpose.

Conversely, no one would go hunting with a BAR. My father carried one in World War II. They weigh twenty pounds and have to be carried on a sling. I know, I’ve held and shot one. There’s absolutely no way I’d ever hunt with one. He’s reaching here. More when I can figure out my problem with multiple posts.

Which one? One variant of the Browning BAR is considered one of the finest rifles for hunting ever made. However, I am guessing you are referring to the M1918 gun known as the “Browning BAR” as well, a machine gun. It was chambered in 30.06, so the only thing about it that makes it any different from a “civilian” gun is that it was a machine gun. As pointed out already, actual machine guns have been very regulated since the 1930s and their manufacture for the civilian market was outlawed in 1986.

It is folks such as yourself I’d say who are reaching when trying to act as if there is a difference between the handguns, semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles the military, law enforcement, and civilians use.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2013 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
VYAZMA - 27 May 2013 06:18 AM

Yes I’m glad you mention it too.  Of course if reasonable people are able to make the distinction between sporting arms and military arms(or arms that are semi-automatic and have a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds) then a more clear picture can be presented to the public on which arms are reasonable for civilians to have and which arms are unreasonable for civilians to have.

And who exactly decides which arms are reasonable for civilians to have versus unreasonable for civilians to have? Who creates that definition? You have thus far not presented any argument at all on how it is unreasonable for civilians to have magazines of larger then ten rounds. I have presented multiple arguments on why it can be very reasonable. You also have not explained how civilians having semiautomatic guns is unreasonable. You also continue to go on about “sporting arms” when the right to keep and bear arms hasn’t the slightest thing to do with that.

Your basic line of argument thus far has been either to just say what civilians should be allowed to have and that’s that, without providing any kind of actual argument for your case, and then to just dismiss other arguments as nuts.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2013 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  346
Joined  2008-09-10
LogicMan - 25 May 2013 02:57 PM

2) Even if there were guns specifically designed to kill people, those are the guns that the Second Amendment would explicitly protect. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. Right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting.

This is where reasonable regulation comes into the picture. 

There is no reason to believe the Second Amendment is intended to allow people to bear arms of any kind, regardless of their nature.  We have arms those who adopted the Second Amendment could not have dreamed of and, as they were largely reasonable people, I think they would not have sought to protect.

I’m not a hunter.  I’ve never felt the need or desire to kill animals; I see no sport in it.  The thought of taking pride in killing creatures far more stupid than I am by use of a weapon which allows me to do so from a distance without any risk on my part strikes me as silly.  So it goes without saying that I find the thought of using more sophisticated firearms for that purpose particularly pathetic.  The fact that one could use an M-16, for example, to kill deer does not impress me, nor do I think it is pertinent to what reasonable regulation of firearms may be.  I could use artillery to kill deer if I was so inclined, but that doesn’t mean I have a right to own artillery.

What is reasonable regulation requires a balancing of interests, weighing the potential for harm against the constitutional right.  If people want to possess arms of all kinds merely because it pleases them to do so in ways that need not be explored, or because they think they can use them to protect themselves against a government which, if it desired, could kill them at any time in a number of ways even if they were armed to the teeth, these are unreasonable expectations which should not form a basis on which to limit regulation.  Of course, certain kinds of regulation may be unreasonable as well.  But the focus should be on what can be done to limit the availability of firearms to those who would use them to break the law giving due deference to a reasonable constrution of the Second Amendment, not on fetishistic devotion to the “right to bear arms.”

 Signature 

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

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2013 02:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
ciceronianus - 27 May 2013 12:38 PM

This is where reasonable regulation comes into the picture.

Which to a good degree we already have. 

There is no reason to believe the Second Amendment is intended to allow people to bear arms of any kind, regardless of their nature.  We have arms those who adopted the Second Amendment could not have dreamed of and, as they were largely reasonable people, I think they would not have sought to protect.

The Second Amendment protects right to keep arms now as much as it did then. The word “arms” generally meant the weapons in common usage. Biological weapons have been used going back to ancient times, but the Founders didn’t mean one’s right to keep plague on hand. Things like nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and things like battle tanks, attack helicopters, bombs, etc…are not arms. Regarding modern firearms though, these are regulated too. The degree however to which gun control advocates seek to regulate firearms would be like claiming that the Founders could never have imagined the Internet, radio, television, and so forth, and therefore it is okay for the government to censor those.

I’m not a hunter.  I’ve never felt the need or desire to kill animals; I see no sport in it.  The thought of taking pride in killing creatures far more stupid than I am by use of a weapon which allows me to do so from a distance without any risk on my part strikes me as silly.

I don’t hunt either as I also do not like to kill animals. However, hunting unto itself is a very regulated activity. The types of guns, types of ammunition, what animals can be hunted, where they can be hunted, when they can be hunted, etc…is all very regulated. The taxes on much of the ammunition that is purchased for hunting help pay for wildlife maintenance and hunting itself serves a useful purpose for wildlife management in that it keeps down populations of animals that otherwise would spiral out of control leading to many freezing to death and/or starving in the wintertime.

However, not all hunting is without risk. If you are hunting grizzly bears for example, there can be an element of risk there, because you have to track the animal, and you can shoot the heart out of a grizzly yet it can still have enough energy to run over and kill you.

So it goes without saying that I find the thought of using more sophisticated firearms for that purpose particularly pathetic.  The fact that one could use an M-16, for example, to kill deer does not impress me, nor do I think it is pertinent to what reasonable regulation of firearms may be.  I could use artillery to kill deer if I was so inclined, but that doesn’t mean I have a right to own artillery.

Artillery is indiscriminate weaponry. You don’t use it to shoot an individual person or animal. And for the most part, you can’t use an actual M-16 (automatic fire variant of the AR-15) to hunt with. You can use an AR-15 (semiautomatic), but even then, only on smaller game. As for using a semiautomatic rifle for hunting, semiautomatic rifles for hunting go back over one-hundred years. Using a lever action, bolt-action, or a pump-action isn’t all that much different with regards to hunting.

What is reasonable regulation requires a balancing of interests, weighing the potential for harm against the constitutional right.  If people want to possess arms of all kinds merely because it pleases them to do so in ways that need not be explored, or because they think they can use them to protect themselves against a government which, if it desired, could kill them at any time in a number of ways even if they were armed to the teeth, these are unreasonable expectations which should not form a basis on which to limit regulation.  Of course, certain kinds of regulation may be unreasonable as well.  But the focus should be on what can be done to limit the availability of firearms to those who would use them to break the law giving due deference to a reasonable constrution of the Second Amendment, not on fetishistic devotion to the “right to bear arms.”

This is a semi-bigoted view whether you realize it or not:

1) “...because it pleases them to do in ways that need not be explored…” Yes, because all gun enthusiasts are men with small penises who get off on having a big pile of guns and are otherwise paranoid, delusional little boys with psychological problems. That people who own multiple guns may just like guns in the way that some people like shoes and some people like cars is not considered.

2) The government, even if it desired, could not kill the entire population possessing arms. We have seen this with the resistance in Syria and we see it with the caution the Chinese Communist party takes with regards to its own people (one could only imagine the threat the Chinese people would face to their government if they were armed like Americans). If the people are armed, there are only so many places that the government can attack, and send troops. But again, resistance should always try to be peaceful. The people being armed serves as a counterweight to the government otherwise having a monopoly on force.

3) Why is it that strong devotion to defense of rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to choose, privacy rights, etc…is fine, but strong devotion to defense of right to arms is looked upon as “fetishistic?”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2013 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  346
Joined  2008-09-10
LogicMan - 27 May 2013 02:17 PM
ciceronianus - 27 May 2013 12:38 PM

This is where reasonable regulation comes into the picture.

This is a semi-bigoted view whether you realize it or not:

1) “...because it pleases them to do in ways that need not be explored…” Yes, because all gun enthusiasts are men with small penises who get off on having a big pile of guns and are otherwise paranoid, delusional little boys with psychological problems. That people who own multiple guns may just like guns in the way that some people like shoes and some people like cars is not considered.

2) The government, even if it desired, could not kill the entire population possessing arms. We have seen this with the resistance in Syria and we see it with the caution the Chinese Communist party takes with regards to its own people (one could only imagine the threat the Chinese people would face to their government if they were armed like Americans). If the people are armed, there are only so many places that the government can attack, and send troops. But again, resistance should always try to be peaceful. The people being armed serves as a counterweight to the government otherwise having a monopoly on force.

3) Why is it that strong devotion to defense of rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to choose, privacy rights, etc…is fine, but strong devotion to defense of right to arms is looked upon as “fetishistic?”

“Fetishistic” need not have a sexual connotation.  It may refer to a worshipful attitude or excessive regard for something believed magical or holy, and that’s how it was intended.

I don’t know why owning firearms gives pleasure, but think it fair to say that it does, to some.  I like sabre fencing, but don’t think that says much about my sexuality, though I’m sure some would say it does.  The point is that I don’t believe that owning all kinds of firearms merely because pleasure is found in it for whatever reason is grounds for restricting reasonable regulation of Second Amendment rights.  Similarly, I think a belief that firearms must not be subject to regulation because the government may some day come after us all is not grounds for doing so.  This is again a balancing of interests.  The pleasure of some is not a basis for allowing ownership of all kinds of firearms, if allowing such ownership puts others in danger.  It isn’t likely the government’s going to come after us, so thinking it just might someday is not a basis on which to object to tougher background checks.

 Signature 

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

http://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2013 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

LogicMan-1) How exactly are “military” guns and “police” guns different from “civilian” guns? If there is a difference, then why is it that all of the most common firearms that have been used by civilians for decades, over one hundred years even in some cases, are identical to the ones the military and law enforcement uses?

Very good, very good!  Now your getting it.  We need to change this.  We need to keep semi-automatic weapons with magazines with 10 round or more capacities, out of the hands of civilians.
You’re absolutely right.  Only the military or the police should have these guns.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 25
7
 
‹‹ Korea      Rand Paul at Howard U. ››