| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| youhas wrote: | | raynebc: While I'm sure our opinions are divergent on a comically wide number of topics, I'm glad that "random civilians might not need assault weapons" is a potential source of common ground. |
I can't recall having heard a good reason to have assault weapons, I suspect it may be more of the matter of the erosion of the second amendment itself. Right now they think any magazine that can hold 10 bullets should be the limit. A couple massacres later, they might say it should be 8 bullets. And the right to guns will get smaller and smaller. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bclare
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 6048
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | youhas wrote: | | raynebc: While I'm sure our opinions are divergent on a comically wide number of topics, I'm glad that "random civilians might not need assault weapons" is a potential source of common ground. |
I can't recall having heard a good reason to have assault weapons, I suspect it may be more of the matter of the erosion of the second amendment itself. Right now they think any magazine that can hold 10 bullets should be the limit. A couple massacres later, they might say it should be 8 bullets. And the right to guns will get smaller and smaller. |
The second amendment has not been eroded, it has grown like a cancer. You realize it's in reference to "a well regulated militia" right?
Besides which, the Constitution (and the amendments to it) aren't some sort of divine declaration of things that need to be legal and/or illegal in perpetuity. It's a document of what people in the late 1700s thought, including things like slavery, counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person, and not allowing women to vote. If it's okay to change that other stuff, then the right to bear arms need not necessarily be preserved.
_________________
I'm back I suppose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
inv4der
Joined: 16 Sep 2007
Posts: 9658
Location: Meridian, ID
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bclare wrote: | | raynebc wrote: | | youhas wrote: | | raynebc: While I'm sure our opinions are divergent on a comically wide number of topics, I'm glad that "random civilians might not need assault weapons" is a potential source of common ground. |
I can't recall having heard a good reason to have assault weapons, I suspect it may be more of the matter of the erosion of the second amendment itself. Right now they think any magazine that can hold 10 bullets should be the limit. A couple massacres later, they might say it should be 8 bullets. And the right to guns will get smaller and smaller. |
The second amendment has not been eroded, it has grown like a cancer. You realize it's in reference to "a well regulated militia" right?
Besides which, the Constitution (and the amendments to it) aren't some sort of divine declaration of things that need to be legal and/or illegal in perpetuity. It's a document of what people in the late 1700s thought, including things like slavery, counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person, and not allowing women to vote. If it's okay to change that other stuff, then the right to bear arms need not necessarily be preserved. |
I'm sure Tommy J is clutching his five M60s right now in his grave. He wanted everyone to have their right to several lethal high end killing devices!
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nubnut
Joined: 07 Jun 2008
Posts: 2078
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bclare wrote: | | raynebc wrote: | | youhas wrote: | | raynebc: While I'm sure our opinions are divergent on a comically wide number of topics, I'm glad that "random civilians might not need assault weapons" is a potential source of common ground. |
I can't recall having heard a good reason to have assault weapons, I suspect it may be more of the matter of the erosion of the second amendment itself. Right now they think any magazine that can hold 10 bullets should be the limit. A couple massacres later, they might say it should be 8 bullets. And the right to guns will get smaller and smaller. |
The second amendment has not been eroded, it has grown like a cancer. You realize it's in reference to "a well regulated militia" right?
Besides which, the Constitution (and the amendments to it) aren't some sort of divine declaration of things that need to be legal and/or illegal in perpetuity. It's a document of what people in the late 1700s thought, including things like slavery, counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person, and not allowing women to vote. If it's okay to change that other stuff, then the right to bear arms need not necessarily be preserved. |
True, but you have to be careful with that line of thinking as it can lead to very dangerous precedents. (IE. NDAA and Patriot Act)
_________________
 1st place on 8 GH:WoR songs on Expert+ drums! (well, at least for a couple days).
XBL Gamertag: Gavesit
Add me if you wanna play RB 3, GH:WoR, GTA IV, Halo Reach, Left 4 Dead etc. etc.
"THERE IS A DREAM I AM LIVING
THERE IS A LIFE I AM DREAMING OF" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bclare wrote: | | You realize it's in reference to "a well regulated militia" right? |
According to Alexander Hamilton, the meaning of those words as used is closer to meaning "well armed and trained" than what you're getting at (well restricted).
| Quote: | | Besides which, the Constitution (and the amendments to it) aren't some sort of divine declaration of things that need to be legal and/or illegal in perpetuity. |
Until the Constitution is amended accordingly, the government's authority to restrict access to guns in various ways is questionable if not flat out illegitimate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
youhas 
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3015
Location: Santa Clara, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | youhas wrote: | | raynebc: While I'm sure our opinions are divergent on a comically wide number of topics, I'm glad that "random civilians might not need assault weapons" is a potential source of common ground. |
I can't recall having heard a good reason to have assault weapons, I suspect it may be more of the matter of the erosion of the second amendment itself. Right now they think any magazine that can hold 10 bullets should be the limit. A couple massacres later, they might say it should be 8 bullets. And the right to guns will get smaller and smaller. |
I'm not sure who "they" are whom you're referencing in your statement. I'm unaware of any federal law that caps guns' magazine sizes and the like. I'm also unaware of any gun-control entity that has even a fraction of the social and political pull that the NRA has. Emotionally, I can understand the slippery slope concerns: "if some gun restrictions are put in place, even if I agree with them, that might open the door for worse restrictions later that I don't agree with!" Intellectually... well, there's a reason why they don't accept the slippery slope "argument" in logic classes. 
And as bclare references above, I'd be really hard-pressed to agree that the Second Amendment had been eroded in recent years. I don't know how old you are, but back in the early '90s, I actively remember Democrats in moderate Congressional districts campaigning for increased gun control; that's not the case anymore, where moderates universally keep quiet on the topic for fear of upsetting gun enthusiasts. Feel free to research the Google frequency of terms like "gun control" and "gun rights" over the last decade to see how the terms of public conversation have drifted. Heck, the core of the conversation has essentially shifted from "should people have a right to own guns?" to "can I carry my concealed gun into schools / bars / government buildings?" You can make a vigorous case that gun enthusiasts' rights haven't been this strong in decades, if ever.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| youhas wrote: | | I'm not sure who "they" are whom you're referencing in your statement. |
It should have been obvious that I was referring to those pushing for stricter gun control. The expired federal assault weapon ban deemed a magazine carrying more than 10 bullets as "high capacity" and banned them. Various states have enacted similar bans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boss1592
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 1345
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
As someone from Britain, I fully realise that the gun culture in America is something is inherently alien. That said, the entire thing genuinely does baffle me. First of all, and I can't speak for everyone, but in my own case, I'm not "politicising tragedy" as Fox news put it, I'm not using the tragedy to "soapbox and feel self-righteous about themselves on the backs of people who died." as PiemanLK proclaimed. In addition to being exceedingly insulting and profoundly ignorant, that kind of thinking is utterly anathema to helpful discourse.
Now, my own position is simply this. The sale and possession of assault weapons to and by civilians should be banned outright, there is absolutely no reason why a man living in a suburban semi needs an automatic weapon. Secondly, if you want a handgun or even a rifle, fine, but can we at the very least tighten up the legislation regarding possession of said firearms just a teeny, tiny bit. I heard it said somewhere that the laws pertaining to the owning and use of a car are tighter than the laws for owning a gun. I can't absolutely attest to the veracity of that claim, it may very well be untrue but I would have no trouble believing that it is true. I really don't think it is an unfair request that people should have to undergo some kind of psychological evaluation, I really don't think that's unreasonable.
I'll read over this again tomorrow and I apologise in advance for anything erroneous, it's so late here that it's early haha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| boss1592 wrote: | | there is absolutely no reason why a man living in a suburban semi needs an automatic weapon. |
I can't believe how often gun control advocates have to be corrected on this. Automatic weapons are ALREADY BANNED. Semi-automatic weapons fire one shot per pull of the trigger and represent the majority of guns in use (most handguns, rifles, shotguns). "Assault weapon" is a political term only, based on arbitrary limits, such as would ban a handgun that can fire 11 bullets (instead of 10) without changing the clip. A recent article I read (http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/10/assault-rifle-saves-teenagers-from-home-invasion-burglars/) pointed out that a little boy saved himself and his sister from two buglars using a semi-automatic rifle. This is a perfect example where a "high capacity" magazine may be necessary: To defend against a gang of thugs. Especially when shooting not to kill, it may take more than one bullet in order to stop a determined criminal.
The last couple of Piers Morgan clips I've seen, his entire argument was: A few select massacres use AR-15 style weapons, so all of those types of guns should be banned. He ignores the facts crammed in his face that the guns that would be affected by the "assault weapon" ban are used in a low amount of the gun homicides, and much less than homicides with knives and blunt objects and instead chooses to make a big show about something that only looks like it would make a significant difference. This is called security theater. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boss1592
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 1345
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | boss1592 wrote: | | there is absolutely no reason why a man living in a suburban semi needs an automatic weapon. |
I can't believe how often gun control advocates have to be corrected on this. Automatic weapons are ALREADY BANNED. Semi-automatic weapons fire one shot per pull of the trigger and represent the majority of guns in use (most handguns, rifles, shotguns). "Assault weapon" is a political term only, based on arbitrary limits, such as would ban a handgun that can fire 11 bullets (instead of 10) without changing the clip. A recent article I read (http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/10/assault-rifle-saves-teenagers-from-home-invasion-burglars/) pointed out that a little boy saved himself and his sister from two buglars using a semi-automatic rifle. This is a perfect example where a "high capacity" magazine may be necessary: To defend against a gang of thugs. Especially when shooting not to kill, it may take more than one bullet in order to stop a determined criminal.
The last couple of Piers Morgan clips I've seen, his entire argument was: A few select massacres use AR-15 style weapons, so all of those types of guns should be banned. He ignores the facts crammed in his face that the guns that would be affected by the "assault weapon" ban are used in a low amount of the gun homicides, and much less than homicides with knives and blunt objects and instead chooses to make a big show about something that only looks like it would make a significant difference. This is called security theater. |
My apologies, I retract the part regarding automatic weapons |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boss1592
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 1345
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | boss1592 wrote: | | there is absolutely no reason why a man living in a suburban semi needs an automatic weapon. |
I can't believe how often gun control advocates have to be corrected on this. Automatic weapons are ALREADY BANNED. Semi-automatic weapons fire one shot per pull of the trigger and represent the majority of guns in use (most handguns, rifles, shotguns). "Assault weapon" is a political term only, based on arbitrary limits, such as would ban a handgun that can fire 11 bullets (instead of 10) without changing the clip. A recent article I read (http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/10/assault-rifle-saves-teenagers-from-home-invasion-burglars/) pointed out that a little boy saved himself and his sister from two buglars using a semi-automatic rifle. This is a perfect example where a "high capacity" magazine may be necessary: To defend against a gang of thugs. Especially when shooting not to kill, it may take more than one bullet in order to stop a determined criminal.
The last couple of Piers Morgan clips I've seen, his entire argument was: A few select massacres use AR-15 style weapons, so all of those types of guns should be banned. He ignores the facts crammed in his face that the guns that would be affected by the "assault weapon" ban are used in a low amount of the gun homicides, and much less than homicides with knives and blunt objects and instead chooses to make a big show about something that only looks like it would make a significant difference. This is called security theater. |
My apologies, I retract the part regarding automatic weapons |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | Right now they think any magazine that can hold 10 bullets should be the limit. A couple massacres later, they might say it should be 8 bullets. And the right to guns will get smaller and smaller. |
And in recent news (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/nyregion/new-york-legislators-hope-for-speedy-vote-on-gun-laws.html), New York is trying to push a ban for magazines that hold more than 7 rounds. Perhaps before long, only the criminals and the military will have "high capacity" magazines that can fire even half a dozen shots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blingdomepiece
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 4358
Location: Ottawa ON Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="raynebc"Perhaps before long, only the criminals and the military will have "high capacity" magazines that can fire even half a dozen shots.[/quote]
And the criminals will end up in prison for having them, which will flip the cost-benefit analysis against having them.
_________________
Expert Pro Keys: 50/63 GS, most recent The Killing Moon
Expert Pro Drums: 53/83 GS, most recent Free Bird / Oh My God / Oye Mi Amor
Expert Pro Bass: 6/83 GS, most recent Everybody Wants to Rule the World
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bclare
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 6048
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | raynebc wrote: | | Right now they think any magazine that can hold 10 bullets should be the limit. A couple massacres later, they might say it should be 8 bullets. And the right to guns will get smaller and smaller. |
And in recent news (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/nyregion/new-york-legislators-hope-for-speedy-vote-on-gun-laws.html), New York is trying to push a ban for magazines that hold more than 7 rounds. Perhaps before long, only the criminals and the military will have "high capacity" magazines that can fire even half a dozen shots. |
Yeah, I honestly don't see a problem with that.
_________________
I'm back I suppose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WhYYZ
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 3150
Location: The netherlands, Amsterdam
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama will release a new weapon law tomorrow. That doesn't need the Congress to take place.
Any thoughts?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
