Another "assault weapon" hits the streets!

[jillian]

Of course it is silly - its a gun ban.

And while a Dem didnt sign it into law, the Dems in the CA legislature passed it into law.

Ahhhhnold has veto power. Did he exercise it and make the Dems override?

Don't get me wrong. I think the governator has acquitted himself fairly well as governor. I just have issues with stupid meaningless laws like the AWB.

 

[Shogun]

Thanks. I know that I can count on you for a straight answer to a straight question. There is no ducking and dodging I can see from you. I’d like to hear from those others who think that the 2nd amendment needs no qualifier. Should someone who has a history of depression (but who has never been convicted of a felony, be allowed to have fully functional hand grenades, bazookas, rocket-launchers, land lines, cannons, and a stash of 70 fully-automatic machine guns? It is a simple yes-no question.

If not, then shouldn’t the 2nd amendment be modified?

Yes, a person who has never been convicted of a felony but has serious bouts of depression should be allowed to own guns. There are many MANY people on maoi inhibitors and the like. depression is the ADDHD for adults perscription abuse so I don't really think such is acurate when trying to predict behaviour.

And I've told you this whole time... if the majority body of the voting Ameican population gets its grass root on and CHANGES THE AMENDMENT then i'll follow the modified. As it is, you can't put arbitrary qualifiers in that have not been voted for. I know you don't think the slippery slope arguement applies but it does. Get it changed (of course, i'll fight against your efforts ) and you'll have a valid complaint. Otheriwise, the second is just as important as the first, fourth, fifth and ninth.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ahhhhnold has veto power. Did he exercise it and make the Dems override?

Thats it -- the Dems can't be blamed for the law because even though they passed it, Ahnold didnt veto it.

Don't get me wrong. I think the governator has acquitted himself fairly well as governor. I just have issues with stupid meaningless laws like the AWB.

Well, That's good to hear, and good to see that not ALL hope is lost fo ryou.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes, a person who has never been convicted of a felony but has serious bouts of depression should be allowed to own guns. There are many MANY people on maoi inhibitors and the like. depression is the ADDHD for adults perscription abuse so I don't really think such is acurate when trying to predict behaviour.

And I've told you this whole time... if the majority body of the voting Ameican population gets its grass root on and CHANGES THE AMENDMENT then i'll follow the modified. As it is, you can't put arbitrary qualifiers in that have not been voted for. I know you don't think the slippery slope arguement applies but it does. Get it changed (of course, i'll fight against your efforts ) and you'll have a valid complaint. Otheriwise, the second is just as important as the first, fourth, fifth and ninth.

Okay. So it is your position that the 2nd amendment should be left alone. Yet, Do you support any legislation that would put restrictions (unconstitutional or not) on the 2nd amendment? Consider the ban on assault rifles. Aren’t any such bans (at the state or local level) unconstitutional?

 

[mattskramer]

Tell us:
Concerning what weapons are protected by the 2nd:
What are those 'limits', why is the line drawn there, and how does that reconcile with the terminology of the 2nd amendment?

I don’t know where I would want the line drawn. My point is that there should be a line. The 2nd amendment may need to be amended to reflect such a limit.

I have another puzzle for you but it consists of simple yes-no questions: Aren’t there laws that already exist that are unconstitutional – (i.e. aren’t certain guns illegal for people to own)? Do you support any such laws?

If so, shouldn’t the 2nd amendment be amended? Should such laws remain unconstitutional?

 

[Shogun]

if I were a justice on the supreme court I would give the second amendment every ounce of liberal interpretation that the first, fourth, fifth and ninth qualifies for. Personally, I would not support any amendment that pecks away at the second. If your grass root effort was successful in repealing the second in favor of one that clarifies gun rights to your opinion, like the repeal of prohibition, then i'd have to grudgingly accept it.

I'm more of a "lets get an amendment that clarifies privacy rights" kinda guy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don’t know where I would want the line drawn. My point is that there should be a line.

And you said you dont dodge questions.

Clearly, you have some idea of what is on the other side of that line -- so rather than dodge the question. why dont you tell us what you actually think.

Be sure to answer the questions that I put to, you once you do:
-why are those weapons on the other side of that line?
-How does that limit reconcile with the terminology of the 2nd amendment?

 

[Shogun]

anyone remember these? I was young enough to remember toy guns without the bright orange tips... THESE were the absolute shit.

queue All In The Family theme song...


Thoooose werrrrre the daayyyyyssss...


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/99UPQEFSGVQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/99UPQEFSGVQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Entertech Water Gun Commercial
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99UPQEFSGVQ[/ame]

 

[mattskramer]

And you said you dont dodge questions.

“I don’t know” is a legitimate answer. It is an answer that defendants should use more often when testifying in court. Perhaps Libby should have used that answer. I remember when Reagan gave such answers. “I don’t know." And “I don’t remember” are perfectly legitimate answers. What constitutes dodging is saying that you clearly answered the question without giving a definitive answer.

Clearly, you have some idea of what is on the other side of that line -- so rather than dodge the question. why dont you tell us what you actually think.

Be sure to answer the questions that I put to, you once you do:
-why are those weapons on the other side of that line?
-How does that limit reconcile with the terminology of the 2nd amendment?

Okay. I think that I would outlaw fully functional bazookas and fully automatic machine guns. I think that some weapons would simply be unnecessary and too dangerous in the hands of common citizens. If you want them for aesthetic reasons, they should be inoperable. This could not logically be reconciled with the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment would need to be amended.

 

[M14 Shooter]

&#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; is a legitimate answer.

uh-huh.

I think that I would outlaw fully functional bazookas and fully automatic machine guns.

So, you DO know. I guess "I dont know" WAS a dodge.

I think that some weapons would simply be unnecessary and too dangerous in the hands of common citizens.

Do you have any empirical data to back this up?
Both in terms of their use and misuse by the general public, and the relevance of your standard, given the reason the 2nd was put in place?

This could not logically be reconciled with the 2nd amendment.

Then your idea of what should be banned isnt something that we need to worry about.

 

[Shogun]

I appreciate that you are honest about where to draw the line, MK.. Perhaps, though, it's that hesitancy to define a line that makes those of us on my side skeptical about whose opinion becomes the standard. "I don't know" is a valid answer and, probably, the most honest one could give. Still, it's probably reinforcing my position because you can't make a viable suggestion in accordance with your policy of limitations. I appreciate the tenacity you are showing in the gun threads. I don't know if this will clear anything up but let me share a couple points.

Guns, like any other tool, can be used to kill. Sure, a cannon is a dangerous piece of potential death. But, so to is everything else that a human can pick, up, manipulate, drive, etc. Which is the greater danger:

a man shooting a tommy gun with the family during the fourth of july
or
a methed out truck driver trying to drive from cali to missouri in less than 24 hours?

For me, the Constitution is clear about certain granted liberties. These are not the sum total of our range of liberties. The Constitution doesn't make suggestions on the limitation of liberty for the whole due to the actions of the few. If that were the case, Constitutional liberty would be an oxymoron. a snake eating its tail, if you will. I think that this is the case because we cannot predict behaviour. Further, we cannot limit the application of the bill of rights based on trying to guess what independent citizens MIGHT do. If someone wants to kill bad enough they will use whatever tool is around. Be it a gun, a knife, a car etc. Does this make everything else besides a gun inherently dangerous to the point of limitations? Again, I can get 10 DWIs and still own a car. AND DRIVING IS MERELY A PRIVILEGE. For me, the bottom line is individual motivation to act regardless of the tool being used. I could kill you with a spork if given the right motivation. This doesn't make spork's inherently dangerous.

Also, we've been comparing dangerous things when this issue comes up. buns are dangerous and require responsible actions. So are farm combines. So are bazookas, flame throwers, landmines and TNT. A gun is no more dangerous than a combine driven by an irresponsible kid. A gun is no more deadly than the hand using it. There is no causal relationship between owning a gun and the desire to kill. Again, like any other tool, a gun can be used appropriately or not. I see nothing in the Constitution that remotely suggests that uncle bob's rights be limited because some asshole four states over acted irresponsibly, or even maliciously, with a gun. This is why anti-gun opinions are simply Y Pluribus Unum unless they can get the second repealed. This might be why you can't suggest a logical acceptable place to draw the line. certainly, it's why the second is an enumerated right.

I am not willing to arbitrarily make opinion calls against the second any more than I would against the first. To be honest, I'm not at all a fan of speach limitations that we allow now. Obscenity is culture specific. Libel and Slander limit personal discretion in conveying a personal observation. Fires in theatres are not half the danger that they once were when lighting came from hundreds of candles.


Like I said, I don't know if any of that will help you understand where I'm coming from with the second amendment but I thought i'd share. If any of that seems redundant then ignore as necessary.


Happy Thanksgiving, MK!

 

[Ninja]

If I said such a thing, please direct me to the post. Otherwise, please don’t waste my time with lame attempts to put words in my mouth.

Never claimed you did. I was pointing out how lame your machine gun tirade was - considering they've been banned FOR 73 FUCKING YEARS.

I was trying to direct our, uh, discussion, into a more relevent direction. Most gun control debates center around a rifle's aesthetic features. Machine guns are off the table. The National Firearms Act will never be repealed - too many bureaucrats rely on it to feed their children. The NRA officially has no objections to the NFA.

I'm curious - why do you think that machine guns are so much more deadly? And how can you reconcile the (nonexistent) lethality differential between semi- and full-auto with the fact that every Marine I've ever spoken with has told me that 99% of the time their service rifles are set to semiauto, even in combat?

 

[Ninja]

I'm kinda wondering, why are we discussing the possibility of a semi auto being banned? I thought that wasn't happening and that the AWB is history, as it were.

Or am I missing something?

HR 1022. Brought to you by:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ospNRk2uM3U&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ospNRk2uM3U&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Better get those barrel shrouds off the street!

Barrel shroud + semiauto rifle = DEADLY

 

[mattskramer]

So, you DO know. I guess "I dont know" WAS a dodge.

No. I still don’t know exactly where I would draw the line. If I were more knowledgeable about all of the types of arms that exist, I might favor banning more types of arms. I think that perhaps there should be a limit to the number of guns each person should have. Would I want to limit each person to 5 guns, 6 guns, or 62 guns, or 63 guns? I don’t know. After more thought, I said that I think that I would outlaw fully functional bazookas and fully automatic machine guns. I did not say that I was absolutely certain that I would ban such guns. I did not say that I would ban more guns.

Do you have any empirical data to back this up?
Both in terms of their use and misuse by the general public, and the relevance of your standard, given the reason the 2nd was put in place?

Nope. It is just my opinion. I presented studies that show that there are more incidences of accidental shootings than there are incidences of property being defended when guns are in the home. I understand that there is a possible unconsidered variable that gun ownership serves as a deterrent to crime. There is the notion that if a homeowner has a gun, a would be criminal would be less likely to invade the home. In time, I think that I will look for more statistical research that considers such a variable. I think that I will also see if there are more (per capita) acts of negligence with high power guns versus acts of negligence with low power arms.

 

[pegwinn]

I think that I changed my mind, If I can have fully functional hand grenades, bazookas, rocket-launchers, land lines, cannons, and a stash of 70 fully-automatic machine guns, I have no objection to your having that gun. Oh. By the way, I was treated for severe depression a few years ago I feel a little bit edgy today. I think that I should get back on my medication but hey, I have never been convicted of a felony yet so I can still have all those weapons (provided that I can afford them), right?

I've been out of pocket for a lil while. Looks like Matts is coming around. You have determined the awesome power, responsibility, and yes, yes dare I say it, accepted RISK, of the second amendment. So anyway, whyforcome do you think that the nanny state doesn't allow you to have that stuff?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. I still don’t know exactly where I would draw the line. If I were more knowledgeable about all of the types of arms that exist, I might favor banning more types of arms

I dont mean to be offensive here, but if you dont know a lot about guns, how can you create a credible argument regarding what guns are "ok" and what guns are not?

I think that perhaps there should be a limit to the number of guns each person should have.

Why?

I presented studies that show that there are more incidences of accidental shootings than there are incidences of property being defended when guns are in the home.

No, That's not what your studies showed.

I think that I will also see if there are more (per capita) acts of negligence with high power guns versus acts of negligence with low power arms.

I'd be REALLY curious to see how you define "negligence" here.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Never claimed you did. I was pointing out how lame your machine gun tirade was - considering they've been banned FOR 73 FUCKING YEARS.

I was trying to direct our, uh, discussion, into a more relevent direction. Most gun control debates center around a rifle's aesthetic features. Machine guns are off the table. The National Firearms Act will never be repealed - too many bureaucrats rely on it to feed their children. The NRA officially has no objections to the NFA.

I'm curious - why do you think that machine guns are so much more deadly? And how can you reconcile the (nonexistent) lethality differential between semi- and full-auto with the fact that every Marine I've ever spoken with has told me that 99% of the time their service rifles are set to semiauto, even in combat?

Machine Guns are NOT banned except in 17 States. In the other 33 you must have a Federal License for each and every fully automatic weapon you possess. You must inform and report to the Federal Government where you store your weapons and you must inform them if this site changes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ask yourself this:
How mnay people are killed -- accidentally or deliberately - with legally owned machineguns, grenade launchers or rocket launchers?

How many crimes are committed with legally owned machineguns, grenade launchers or rocket launchers?

 

[mattskramer]

Okay. You win. I give up. Let’s have all sorts of arms that anyone could manufacture. Anyone, as long has he has never been convicted of a felony should be free to buy as many such guns as he can afford. If a mentally unstable person wants 200 fully automatic machine guns daisy chained together, so be it. Perhaps he can manufacture his own military-style arsenal with everything from miniature multi barrel Gatling guns to Tommy Guns. Let’s remove the National Firearms Act wich is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment. Yep. There should be absolutely no limit what so ever to private citizens owning arms.

 

[Ninja]

He's seen the light! Good job Matthew.