[quote]Moriarty wrote:
So it is strange when a group of people are having a good-faith debate on firearms, and a person walks in the room and accuses those in the room of wanting nuclear devices or explosive ordinance, which are not firearms.[/quote]
Perhaps you missed the ridiculous whining about how any limits or controls were inappropriate and so forth? My comment was not simply out of the blue – nor was I suggesting that we are going down a slippery slope or whatever bullshit conclusion everyone is trying to jump to.
To reiterate, reasonable limits to rights and privileges are the purvey of the democratic process, within the confines of the constitution.
The extreme end of range concept of personal nukes makes very clear that almost everyone agrees that there are limits to the types of weapons that people can reasonable expect to own and use.
Strangely, that’s what I started out doing.
As a starting point, or basis for determining the utility of regulations, I believe that rules and regulations should be in place to inconvenience or identify the criminals rather than simply punishing the law abiding. Banning the law abiding from having guns – a rule which criminals will ignore anyway – is dumb.
Perhaps if people pay more attention and practice less knee-jerking it would be easier to have a real discussion?
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Hello strawman, and hello angry interjection.
Vroom, you are plainly off your rocker in this case. No one even remotely suggested that we should have access to all those crazy silo stored warheads for “home defense”. So far, no one for that matter is even coming close to suggesting we be able to stockpile other full assault style weapons.
No doubt that will come in time, but for now you’ve got no legs to stand on with that inane statement.
What is an “assault style” weapon?[/quote]
Anything from a stick,up…it’s one of those inane definitions that get bandied about.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Implying that the right to own a handgun will lead to the right to own a nuclear weapon is about as stupid as implying that homosexual marriage will lead to man-animal marriages.
So, I take it there is zero debate about the type of weapons that people should be allowed to own?
Keep in mind… I do agree with the courts decision.[/quote]
I wasn’t so much disagreeing with you as I was pointing out an ironic similarity.
The first ever assault rifle was the MP 44. It had unique design characteristics that made it a new class of weapon. When Hitler first saw an MP 44 demonstrated he named it Sturmgewehr which translates into Assault Rifle.
Here are it’s class defining characteristics.
The MP 44 was a select fire weapon. Which means it could be fired single shot or fully automatic. Thompson submachine guns could do this also.
Tommy guns are not asault rifles though. The reason why is the tommy gun fired the .45 automatic colt pistol round. The .45 was okay for spraying shots at close range but was useless for distance shooting.
The next characteristic is ammo. The standard German army rifle round was the 8mm Mauser. For long distance shooting it is a great rifle round, muck like the .308 caliber used in the American M14, (which is not a true assault rifle).
The problem with the high powered rifle ammo is it has too much kick to control it in full auto. The solution the Germans came up with was a shortened (kurtz) 8mm round. This struck a compromise between being a battle rifle round but also something that would be controlable in full auto like a submachine gun.
The Russians did the same thing when they designed the AK 47, they took their Mosin-Nagant rifle round and shortened it.
In battle the Germans found the MP 44 made their troops a lot braver storming enemy positions because at the flip of a switch they could go from a single shot battle rifle to full auto.
Semi to full auto with a medium power rifle round is what makes an assault rifle an assault rifle. Without full auto you don’t have an assault rifle.
Assault ______ has become a buzzword that is now thrown at any weapon the gun control nuts and media don’t like, because it stirs up an emotional response to mental images that have been ingrained by watching movies like Platoon or Scarface.
Today we have assault rifles, assault pistols, assault muskets, assault knives, assault sticks and assault stones. It’s the perfect word for sexing up a story and getting that extra bit of emotional response out of a reporters audience.
After the war the men who designed the MP44
escaped to Spain which was still a facist state. There they designed a new assault rifle for the Spanish army. It was called the Cetme.
Later on when Nato member West Germany was looking for a new rifle for the Wehrmacht. The German gun maker Heckler Koch purchased a license to produce the Cetme, that gun is known as the Hekler Koch G5.
After the war the men who designed the MP44
escaped to Spain which was still a facist state. There they designed a new assault rifle for the Spanish army. It was called the Cetme.
Later on when Nato member West Germany was looking for a new rifle for the Wehrmacht. The German gun maker Heckler Koch purchased a license to produce the Cetme, that gun is known as the Hekler Koch G5. [/quote]
Notice how similar it is to the Ar-18. Stoner borrowed from the StG44, for sure.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Implying that the right to own a handgun will lead to the right to own a nuclear weapon is about as stupid as implying that homosexual marriage will lead to man-animal marriages.[/quote]
Strangely though, that logic is considered sound by some people.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That is practically all the 2nd is really about. Sorry, but it, the 2nd, has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with recreational target shooting. It has practically nothing to do with “home protection” from common criminals.
It has everything to do with home protection from government criminals. When are people including the four imbeciles who voted against this decision ever going to get this through their heads?
[/quote]
Interesting point.
I think recent events have shown the republicans today to be more concerned with the power of the state, or the executive, than empowering individuals (against a run amok state).
I don’t think the current republican view would consider seriously the long term need to arm the citizenry for this purpose. Not that I have anything good to say about the democrats and gun laws.
[quote]
Magnate wrote:
…Scalia’s opinion does interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right, but only for self-protection, and only in the home. The concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government seems dead…
pushharder wrote:
This bothers me to no end. Anyone who has read my posts on this subject knows my zeal when it comes to “the concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government.”
That is practically all the 2nd is really about. Sorry, but it, the 2nd, has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with recreational target shooting. It has practically nothing to do with “home protection” from common criminals.
It has everything to do with home protection from government criminals. When are people including the four imbeciles who voted against this decision ever going to get this through their heads?
BB, I didn’t read the decision. Can you tell me if this most basic of concepts about the 2nd was even remotely alluded to in the decision? If it wasn’t then this decision was really only a lateral improvement in the battle of ideas. [/quote]
Not in so many words.
They didn’t really get in to the historical reasons for establishing the right - just what it means (a right, vested in individuals, to keep and bear arms). A large part of the opinion was devoted to shooting down Justice Stevens’ position that the purpose was limited to bearing arms in a militia. It did speak about the predecessor right from the English Bill of Rights, which it mentions was inspired by a deep suspicion against the concentrated military forces of the king. That’s probably dicta though, because it wasn’t part of the holding per se.
The opinion also allows certain restrictions would apply, but doesn’t get into what those may entail (properly, IMHO - the court needs to stick to the case and controversy at hand, not pronounce policy - it’s inefficient, but it’s proper). The ruling overturns the very restrictive DC handgun ban.
The Scalia opinion does say that the right entails the ability to keep and bear arms in case of a confrontation - but doesn’t name the other party that would be involved…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BB, I didn’t read the decision. Can you tell me if this most basic of concepts about the 2nd was even remotely alluded to in the decision? If it wasn’t then this decision was really only a lateral improvement in the battle of ideas. [/quote]
“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense … We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”
It specifically states for the purpose of self defense.
You can find the full decision, and the justices’ opinions here:
Pages 4 through 67 have the courts official statement delivered by Scalia, following that is the dissenting opinions.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This bothers me to no end. Anyone who has read my posts on this subject knows my zeal when it comes to “the concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government.”
That is practically all the 2nd is really about. Sorry, but it, the 2nd, has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with recreational target shooting. It has practically nothing to do with “home protection” from common criminals.
It has everything to do with home protection from government criminals. When are people including the four imbeciles who voted against this decision ever going to get this through their heads?
BB, I didn’t read the decision. Can you tell me if this most basic of concepts about the 2nd was even remotely alluded to in the decision? If it wasn’t then this decision was really only a lateral improvement in the battle of ideas. [/quote]
I’ve seen your zeal, yes, and I hope you don’t mind that I’ve borrowed some of it at times. My time at T-Nation has convinced me that the 2nd amendment is just as important as the others.
I got into a large argument with my father today about this very concept. My argument was very similar to yours though with slightly less zeal, his argument was thusly:
~If the government wanted to create a police state, they could do it whether we have guns or not via communication control and power control.
~Guns do more harm then they are worth if they are only worth having to protect us from a possible, and in his words, highly unlikely revolution.
~Having a gun does not help you protect your home (yeah, I didn’t get it either).
~The second amendment is archaic, and only applied in the 18th century when tyranny had to be held at bay by everyday citizens.
A lot of his argument makes no sense to me, but I do see some of the logic. I know you have a lot of passion for this, care to help me with my rebut?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
~If the government wanted to create a police state, they could do it whether we have guns or not via communication control and power control.[/quote]
He’s right about their ability to control communication (what does he mean by power control?) but I don’t understand how he thinks an unarmed citizen is no easier to control than an armed one. Or does he just think regardless of how well armed the citizens are we can’t compete with a standing army?
Didn’t incidence of gun crime w/in DC triple during the DC handgun ban? Anyone know the statistics off hand/where to look?
[quote]~Having a gun does not help you protect your home (yeah, I didn’t get it either).
[/quote]
That one rebuts itself.
Tell him, “Fine and fuckin’ dandy then. Repeal it. That’s right, if it’s archaic then repeal it but don’t morph it into something it’s not. Because if you can do that with the 2nd then you can do it with the 1st, and the 2nd - 10th. And then the whole document becomes somewhat worthless.”[/quote]
He gave me the old “the rest of the Bill of Rights is still applicable in the modern era”. And of course, the classic RainJack arguement, “You’re to fucking young and inexperienced to understand these things. I’m older so I know more. Rawr.”
He gave me the old “the rest of the Bill of Rights is still applicable in the modern era”. And of course, the classic RainJack arguement, “You’re to fucking young and inexperienced to understand these things. I’m older so I know more. Rawr.”[/quote]
But did he do it with as much profanity as RJ? Seriously now, because if he didn’t, that takes a lot of weight out of the argument
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Your arguments are similar to my own. Especially:
Tell him, “Fine and fuckin’ dandy then. Repeal it. That’s right, if it’s archaic then repeal it but don’t morph it into something it’s not. Because if you can do that with the 2nd then you can do it with the 1st, and the 2nd - 10th. And then the whole document becomes somewhat worthless.”
He gave me the old “the rest of the Bill of Rights is still applicable in the modern era”. And of course, the classic RainJack arguement, “You’re to fucking young and inexperienced to understand these things. I’m older so I know more. Rawr.”[/quote]
Keep pressing him on it. What standard does he use to determine applicability? Why is this particular amendment an anachronism, but the rest are not? And, as pushharder pointed out, if it is such an anachronism, why not repeal it in the constitutionally approved fashion?
