Ah yes, different rights for those with different abilities. Vonnegut would be proud.Originally Posted by Eric the Green
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Posts
- 2,244
Ah yes, different rights for those with different abilities. Vonnegut would be proud.
That's a good idea; I hadn't thought of that copperfield. Let's make it harder for people who can shoot faster to get a gun!
Haw many libruls can it kill in our upcoming civil war?Nor are they any more lethal that a good bolt action rifle.
After all, this military-style rifle...
Killed far more Germans than this automatic submachinegun...
Just to make the difference clear, a video of a M 16 assault rifle in 3 shot burst mode. Four bursts of 3 shots per burst are fired.
@ Eric
Nobody's going to be willing to sit through another 30 or 40 years to see another failed war on objects or concepts through. We've lived through the war on drugs and the war on terror and neither worked and they cost billions of dollars for less than nothing. It's a terrible thing. It's a waste of time and money and more and more people just want it to stop every day. It's not going to happen.
Speed is not really an issue when you step down from full auto. Bolt and lever action weapons are still exceedingly fast in terms of being able to pick a target, fire, ready a bullet, pick a target and fire again. You can ready a bullet in any system other than blackpowder before you can pick your next target, and it doesn't take much practice to do so.
Speaking of practice, spree shootings are planned events. It's not something someone just randomly decides to do. So unless you can totally keep fire arms out of all people's hands forever, they'll get them or they'll manufacture explosives instead. So all you're really doing is taking a legitimate arm for legitimate purposes out of the hands of a person who can put it to good use.
Millennials are not libertarians, neither am I. However, being a cusper who shares more traits with millennials than he does with Xers more frequently and who hangs out in a Millennial dominated social circle in a swing state (really, the only politically relevant states), I can tell you the majority of Millennials I know trust the people around them, and expect the government to regulate forces that are larger than them only. They want the healthcare, they want protections from fiscal predators, but they definitely don't want someone telling them what to do. They resent helmet culture.
I don't really care if it's about safety (helmet culture) or if it's about fighting Nazis on the moon. It's logistically impossible. At any given time, far fewer people possess pot than guns. Yet the government can't control marijuana trade. How could you ever believe that the government could control the flow of semi-automatic fire arms, which are the most popular classification of fire arm on the market? Realistically, it can't be done.
I don't support gun nuttery. I support responsible and reasonable gun ownership. There are plenty of options available that neither side is considering (such as safe storage requirements) that I feel would be reasonable and productive. I feel no "pangs of guilt" or whatever nonsense you think I should the same way I feel nothing towards seeing news that a fatality accident occurred. That's part of life. There are tragedies, and there will be tragedies no matter what you do. There will be man made tragedies no matter what you do.
Journalists are doing a horrible job. It's sensationalist garbage no matter where you go, most of the time they do not have a reasonable understanding on the topic they are reporting on, investigative journalism has largely been abandoned, and mostly the job entails sensationalist rewrites of publicly available information. It's that way not matter what network or newspaper you turn to, and no matter what topic you're reading on. It's why every major news network is losing ratings every day. It's garbage reporting, and more and more people realize it every day.
I don't know Eric, how many does it need to kill?
The fastest way to disarem America is the same way we cracked down on meth labs: hinder the supply of raw materials. In this case, make it virutaly impossible to buy smokeless powder. Black powder? OK, you can have that. In fact, that seems in close compliance with the 2nd Amendmdnt as written.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Another Video
Going one step further, here is a video comparing the M 16 with an AK 47, the two most common modern military assault rifles.
The AK 47 throws a larger round with more hitting power. While the M 16 makes a neat hole in a concrete block, the AK 47 will smash the block. The M 16 rounds have quite enough power if one is fighting humans. If one was fighting cavalry, or well armored opponents, maybe the heavier AK 47 rounds would be useful. The video might illustrate why hunting rifles used for big game are often more powerful than weapons used for self defense, law enforcement or military use.
The video also shows why smaller rounds might be better if you are in a hurry. The AK 47's big rounds result in more recoil. The AK 47 shooter only fired in short bursts as he would lose control firing long bursts. Smaller rounds result in less recoil which allow more shots fired faster with accuracy. The heavier and higher power the slug, the more time it takes to line up for the next shot. The lighter the cartridge, the more rounds one can reasonably carry.
***
I proposed a true individual right to bear weapons suitable for self defense and hunting, single shot per trigger pull, magazines limited in size to something in the 6 to 10 shot range, TBD. It would have to be made a constitutional amendment to truly stick, as the founding fathers wanted a militia (all male citizens of military age) armed with military grade weapons. (Duh.) I think it plausible that such an arrangement might pass.
Anyone care to comment?
Grumble
The 2nd Amendment makes no reference to the type of powder, the size of magazine, the length of barrel, the rate of fire. It only says the right shall not be infringed, meaning one should not place limits on the right such as type of powder, the size of magazine, the length of barrel, etc...
Congress may call up the militia to enforce the law, suppress insurrections or repel invasions. The militia (all adult fit males of military age) have military and law enforcement functions, and thus have a right to bear arms suitable for military and law enforcement use.
(Expletive deleted) read the (expletive deleted) constitution if you are going to express opinions on what it says.
***
When we're talking about global warming I can't help but bring up the subject of values lock. Some people have such strong political values about size of government that they are incapable of accepting the scientific evidence. This is part of a notion held by blue leaning people that Republicans might live in a fact free environment.
I will note in passing that many blue leaning folk on issues relating to gun control become incapable of honestly reading the Constitution, of understanding the founding father's time and intent when setting up the militia. This too is values lock. Many will state what they believe the Constitution ought to say without being familiar with what it actually says.
This too is an example of political values causing one to live in a fact free environment.
Last edited by B Butler; 12-19-2012 at 05:02 PM.
I think that's more acceptable. I think your constitutional problem is a red herring though. We have the militia which the founding fathers wanted, the army/navy/marines/police/guard/FBI (minus the universal draft), and no-one thinks gun laws would restrict the DOD/Justice Dept./local police dept. from getting the weapons it needs. Recent court decisions barred severe bans, but not gun control. CA still has pretty strong laws, and they have not been overturned.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 12-19-2012 at 04:49 PM.
Well I think you need to think a little more before writing posts. I haven't seen any citizens' militias, and I haven't violated anyone's rights. You can do better, Kia. Just try a little harder. I have faith yet that you can fill JPT's shoes.
Infringe
The militia may be called up by Congress for three reasons: to enforce laws, to suppress insurrections, or to repel invasions. None of these purposes involve leaving the country. The militia, all adult males of military age, may not be used outside the country. The army, navy, marines, air force and national guard are standing armies, professional forces, paid, recieving training over and above the training given to all adult males of military age.
The constitutional problem is not a red herring. The Constitution has separate sections governing the Navy, Army and Militia. There are very different rules governing each. The founding fathers trusted the militia as the natural defense of a free state. Standing armies, not so much. If one is going to join the legal talk in the gun debate, one might best be familiar with the Constitution.
Agreed, there are many laws on the books that have not been overturned. They have not yet been challenged. Most such laws were passed when it was thought that the right to bear arms was not an individual right. Now that the phrase "Right of the People" has been acknowledged as indicating an individual right was intended, the phrase "shall not be infringed" becomes more important.
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.If someone challenges a state law that limit's one's right to bear arms, it might take years for the appeals to work up to the Supreme Court. Who knows if a modern Supreme Court would interpret the law as written or legislate from the bench on what the ideal interpretation would be in this modern age?infringe |inˈfrinj|
verb ( infringes, infringing, infringed ) [ with obj. ]
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright.
• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed | [ no obj. ] : I wouldn't infringe on his privacy.
If it seems plausible for an amendment to pass, I'd like to see it tried. If we are going to limit magazine size and rate of fire, I'd like to have the legal authority to do so be well grounded.
***
I watched a piece on the evening news. A reporter had gone to a local gun store, and asked the guy behind the counter assorted questions. The salesmen responded, holding up various pieces of hardware to illustrate his answers.
He couldn't, however, hold up an example of a 30 round magazine. Shortly after Sandy Hook, as the latest surge in gun control talk rose in the media, his entire stock of 30 round magazines sold out.
As I've said before, if the Democrats turn brown and the Republicans stay white then race relations will deteriorate and move backwards. Democrats talk smart but they continue do stupid shit. It's pretty hard to draw from wealth that doesn't exist in your world anymore. You live in Michigrim, you should understand that statement. If you don't, vote the way vote, talk the way you talk and watch as things get even worse.
How about some pesky statistics on homicide in the United States? More people in the United States are murdered every year by fists and feet than are killed by rifles and shotguns combined. No word on if the President will be introducing a bill to ban hands and feet but clearly such devices are dangerous to our children and communities.
From the FBI.
Murder Victims by Weapon, 2007–2011 Weapons 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 14,916 14,224 13,752 13,164 12,664 Total firearms: 10,129 9,528 9,199 8,874 8,583 Handguns 7,398 6,800 6,501 6,115 6,220 Rifles 453 380 351 367 323 Shotguns 457 442 423 366 356 Other guns 116 81 96 93 97 Firearms, type not stated 1,705 1,825 1,828 1,933 1,587 Knives or cutting instruments 1,817 1,888 1,836 1,732 1,694 Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 647 603 623 549 496 Personal weapons (fists, feet, etc.)1 869 875 817 769 728 Poison 10 9 7 11 5 Explosives 1 11 2 4 12 Fire 131 85 98 78 75 Narcotics 52 34 52 45 29 Drowning 12 16 8 10 15 Strangulation 134 89 122 122 85 Asphyxiation 109 87 84 98 89 Other weapons/weapons not stated 1,005 999 904 872 853 1 Pushed is included in personal weapons.
Since the armed professional militias were established, there have been no citizen militias. I don't recall any such incident of one being called. It is out-of-date language, and was out-of-date shortly after it was written. We have the National Guard, and that's what is called up when needed, and we have police forces and the FBI. And when Lincoln faced an armed domestic rebellion, he called up the army and navy, not a militia. We certainly don't need amateur police running around with guns. Maybe in a movie like The Russians Are Coming, The Russians are Coming (those people are running around down there with guns!" says Jonathon Winters. "I thought all the NUTs went home after Labor Day" says Brian Keith.)
I thought you knew that the Supreme Court has said gun control is legal.Agreed, there are many laws on the books that have not been overturned. They have not yet been challenged. Most such laws were passed when it was thought that the right to bear arms was not an individual right. Now that the phrase "Right of the People" has been acknowledged as indicating an individual right was intended, the phrase "shall not be infringed" becomes more important.
Feinstein is proposing to renew and update the assault weapons ban that lapsed some years ago. You don't think it would be upheld in court?If it seems plausible for an amendment to pass, I'd like to see it tried. If we are going to limit magazine size and rate of fire, I'd like to have the legal authority to do so be well grounded.
I admit it is very hard to imagine the level of idiocy that this represents. America is full of crazies.He couldn't, however, hold up an example of a 30 round magazine. Shortly after Sandy Hook, as the latest surge in gun control talk rose in the media, his entire stock of 30 round magazines sold out.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 12-19-2012 at 05:46 PM.
I agree and I see this too, although in what you argue is politically-irrelevant Washington State.
What would keep young people from supporting a wholesale ban would be the "eat local" type movements that include hunting/killing for your own meat. Those are people who do not fit what we think of as a typical gun owner. I think this segment of gun owners would preach and be willing to enact education on responsible gun ownership. I could see requirement to join a club or classes as a part of buying a firearm. In this scenario, it should be obvious to fellow classmates that there is a person that seems disturbed, troubled, isolated, etc...
Last edited by Coskin84; 12-19-2012 at 05:51 PM.
I suppose if there were a looming ban on fists and feet, there would be a huge run at the local fists and feet store.
Doesn't that hold true for the use of cars? It certainly holds true for the use of amateur radio frequencies. Pass a competency test and get a license.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."
"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
Relevance to topic? Please?
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."
"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
From the local station today:
http://www.wapt.com/news/central-mis...z/-/index.html
Think?
He's moving that way pretty quick. If you exercise your free speech rights in such a way to criticize his opinion, you seem to be violating his right to never be criticized. He also can't see demand side Keynesian economics or the government helping those in need other than through the prism of race.
But he has a way to go before he gets quite as blatant as JPT. I wouldn't recommend that you demand such people think. Kinda futile.
I haven't heard much from the citizen militias recently either. I'm sort of assuming they are still out there, but they don't seem to be getting as much press.
Well let's take a look at motor vehicles while we are on the subject. As of 2009 there were 254 million registered vehicles in the United States (around 100 million fewer vehicles than firearms). Vehicles are heavily regulated and taxed. Operators must be licensed and insured at their own cost. The result of all of this regulation? In 2009 33,808 people were killed in car accidents/crashes. So we have fewer vehicles than firearms, far more regulation on vehicles than firearms and (on average) 3 to 4 times more fatalities from vehicles than firearms. One has to ask; just who does all of this taxation and regulation for motor-vehicles serve and what does it accomplish? The state rates driver competency yet their "competent" operators kill more than 30,000 people a year. Does this sound like good work to you? Do you believe a similar system would stop killers from killing with firearms?
Last edited by Copperfield; 12-19-2012 at 08:22 PM.
People use vehicles a lot more than they use firearms, unless they are going to shooting ranges or hunting grounds every day, in which case they are not endangering people there. Millions of people use cars every day, some for many miles. The risk of getting into an accident when you drive is something like 0.01%.
Yes. It would help. Many more would die from cars without the regulation. Do you think drunk driving should be allowed? That accounts for half the fatalities.One has to ask; just who does all of this taxation and regulation for motor-vehicles serve and what does it accomplish? The state rates driver competency, yet their "competent" operators kill more than 30,000 people a year. Does this sound like good work to you? Do you believe a similar system would stop killers from killing with firearms?
@ Marx&Lennon - We didn't halt the production of meth or even slow it down in the end. We disrupted it for a short amount of time while the manufacturers consolidated their production abilities and developed yet other ways to create it. There's still plenty of meth on the streets.
You;d encounter the same problem with banning smokeless powder. There are too many chemical combinations you can use to make it, too many applications the materials therein are used for, and ultimately, you'll just wind up with a very briefly disrupted supply, and a period of time where more dangerous rounds are produced by hacks.
@ Eric - People can and do own explosives, and automatic weapons are legal. They're regulated, and in the case of explosives are regulated in a way that promotes their greater constructive capacity (storage requirement, lisences, and permits to use). The 2nd Ammendment firmly removes the possibilities of lisences and permits for firearms, and might be ruled unconstitutional for explosives if it ever came up. However, safe storage is pretty reasonable, would increase the upfront cost of aquiring fire arms, but not pointlessly and it would create a better, more productive environment.
Millennials won't protest, they just won't show up for candidates that don't, in some way, represent their interests. That's what happened in 2010. They mustered enough force to get Obama elected, but the other candidates don't spark their interests, so they don't show up. Eventually, they'll either run for office and undercut one of the other party's prior agendas or they'll make their own party. So they won't protest it, they'll just side step the issue. I know a lot of Millennial parents who're very annoyed at the prospect of keeping their children in booster seats for 8 years. I know they resent not being treated like adults, and they're going to reject anyone who comes through with that 3rd turning Leiberman/Tipper Gore mentality.
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. The 3T's close was frought with a constant stream of rules, regulations, laws, and changes that were born of not understanding this basic concept. Yeah, we can do a lot of things, but almost all of them will yeild minimal gains at maximum cost with tons of unforseen negative consequences.
I'm not exaggerating. Most media watch dogs have complained about this for decades. America has terrible news media. You'd be better off watching Japanese or Russian media, because you wouldn't understand what they were saying. We have terrible journalists.
Method and Madness
There are two Prohibition era Supreme Court cases saying the government may restrict non military weapons as they have nothing to do with maintaining a militia, but cannot restrict weapons that would be appropriate to the maintenance of a militia. If one looks at the Constitution as a whole, it is clear the authors intended that every man be armed with military grade weapons.
During the Jim Crow era, the entire Bill of Rights was nullified for the sake of keeping negroes in their place. I do not trust politically appointed judges to interpret the text as written. Too often they will legislate from the bench, make a ruling that in their opinion is best for the country.
The earlier assault gun ban was in place while the 2nd was read as not granting an individual right. That has changed. If the court rules by the text as written during the founding "militia is the natural defense of a free state" era, according to the Prohibition era precedents saying only non-military weapons can be regulated, and with the 2008 ruling that there is an individual right, a renewed assault gun ban might well be interpreted as unconstitutional.
The values of the country have changed in a big way since the founding father's time. I do believe it would be best to change the Constitution in this case to reflect modern values. We could try to finagle things and hope future courts do the right thing, but I'd much rather hammer things down squarely.
Again, you are making no attempt to understand the values of those you disagree with. Perhaps it is my experience with role playing games, but I've had to learn to step into character as a member of a wide variety of cultures, genders and species. If one is an actor or role player it's a necessary skill to develop. How can I make a fictional character believable, rather than a shallow stereotype who is evil, insane, stupid, incompetent or otherwise dysfunctional? If one is going to act or role play, can one develop an ability to portray someone with more depth than "I'm wearing a black hat, so I have to shoot at the guys wearing white hats and miss"?
I don't know, but I find the inability of most people on this forum to do anything similar to method acting a shame. People have widely varying values. Everyone who has different values should not be assumed to be stupid, evil, or insane. After years of doing role playing games, it would be easy for me to role play a character who would buy oversized magazines upon hearing they will be hard to get in the future. Such a character would think anyone pushing for such a rule would be a wuss.
Then again, in role playing games, a lot of problems are solved with violence. My role playing characters often have values quite distinct from my own. Even John Wayne's characters were more apt to shoot up bad guys than John Wayne the actor. A lot of people who flirt with the gun culture know the police will not get there until it is far too late, and take their responsibility to protect their own as seriously as one of John Wayne's characters might. It would not be difficult for me to slip into character as one of these people, though out of character I'd be looking to minimize the need for violence.
You are hardly the only one, but a good sized aspect of values lock is an inability to walk a mile in the other guy's shoes, to project where he has lived, what he has seen, and what solutions to problems are typical and habitual. As an exercise, one might assume that the other guy on the far side of the values chasm thinks he has a life style equally set in bedrock reality as yours, and thinks with as good a reason as you that you are the ditzy reality deprive crazy. Assume this is true, then think about what it would take to role play such a personality in an ad-lib play. Could you play such a role in a respectful realistic way, or would you only be capable of a parody strawman caricature?
A lot of people around here seem utterly unable or uninterested in working out such an exercise.
Last edited by B Butler; 12-19-2012 at 09:52 PM.
