|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Could someone pretty please tell me why a civilian would ever need a rapid-fire gun? You've got it backwards. Rights aren't determined by need. Rights are restricted by need. The question is why would we need to stop a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Another word that can be defined multiple ways. Why didn't they say "own and bear"?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
The question is why would we need to stop a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun. quote: Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Another word that can be defined multiple ways. Why didn't they say "own and bear"? I dunno, they talked differnt back then. How could I even know that?
The question is why would we need to stop a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun.
quote: Now all you have to do is show how stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun promotes the general Welfare.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It says that the state has the power to do those things, but it does not limit the militia to being powered by the state. Not quite correct, CS. The power to train, organize, etc. a constitutional 'Militia' is reserved to the states in Article I of the constitution. Yes, there can be other groups of citizens with guns, and they can call themselves a militia, or the minutemen, or the Klan if they want. But those are not the groups referered to as 'the Militia' in the constitution. The 2nd amendment does not create a Militia. The provisions for that are in the body of the constitution.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So just put a end to the manufacture of ammo for any assault type weapons. There's no such thing as "ammo for assault-type weapons" because there's no such thing as an "assault-type weapon" - any firearm can be used to assault someone - and they don't use special ammo. .223 caliber, for instance, is a hunting round. 9mm Parabellum is a target-shooting round. Hollow-point bullets are meant for the range since they don't penetrate - but it's precisely because they don't penetrate, but deliver all of their kinetic energy to the target, that they can be so lethal. There's no such thing as a "safe" bullet to be shot with; there was nothing particularly lethal about the firearms used in any of these mass shootings beyond their high capacity magazines (the restriction of which I support, perhaps along with a California-style "bullet button" requirement than magazines be detatchable from semiautomatic weapons only by use of a special tool.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Now all you have to do is show how stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun promotes the general Welfare. That wouldn't be enough. The 2nd amendment expresses a limitation on Congressional power. So until the 2nd amendment is out of the way, there is no need to look to the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause. But absent the 2nd amendment, I think limitations on the fire rate and capacity are no brainers. Congressional action would be judged on a very liberal 'rational basis' which essential never results in a statute being overturned.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
A semi auto will not get off a first shot any quicker than a revolver or a single shot. Indeed they won't get any shot off faster than a revolver; revolvers have the highest rate of fire of any firearm. All of the records for fastest rate of fire of conventional firearms (as distinguished from high-tech "caseless" autofire weapons) are set with revolvers. You seemingly know nothing about guns.
All the semi auto will give you is more shots before reloading. "Semi-auto" doesn't refer to the number of rounds held in the firearm; it refers to the action of the firearm, and whether the weapon uses the recoil energy of the shot to cycle the action and load the next round. It's not a reference to how fast the weapon can be fired or how many rounds it can hold. You seemingly know nothing about guns.
Its original design was not as a hunting rifle. That's exactly wrong. The Bushmaster .223 is, of course, a variant of the AR-15 modular receiver concept; that design grew out of the AR-10, which was originally designed as a lightweight "survival rifle" - a modular weapon in a lightweight caliber that could be disassembled and stored as part of a survival kit. In other words it was a hunting weapon. The AR-15 variant adapted the technology to meet the requirements of the Army program to replace the M1 Garand, itself originally a hunting rifle chambered for .30-06. You seemingly know nothing about guns.
I good hunting rifle should be accurate within 6" at 300 yards. The Bushmaster .223 is accurate to within 2" at 300 yards, using the right ammo, accessories, and barrel. Semiauto rifles are more accurate than bolt-action ones because the recoil energy is absorbed and used. And it's worth pointing out that almost all of the accessories that increase accuracy - optical scopes, energy-absorbing stocks, balancing counterweights - are precisely the accessories that make these weapons look "military." One is left with the impression that gun foes think that weapons would be safer if they were made more inaccurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
It says that the state has the power to do those things, but it does not limit the militia to being powered by the state. Not quite correct, CS. The power to train, organize, etc. a constitutional 'Militia' is reserved to the states in Article I of the constitution. Section 8:
quote: To me, the militia means the individuals of The People who have the right to have arms. This is greater than the portion of them that will be called up and trained when the need arrises. When that happens, it'll be up to the States to get them organized and appoint officers.
Yes, there can be other groups of citizens with guns, and they can call themselves a militia, or the minutemen, or the Klan if they want. But those are not the groups referered to as 'the Militia' in the constitution. The groups refered to as 'the Militia' in the constitution will be compromised of The People, who as individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, because the security of the free stated relies on a well regulated militia, and a well regulated militia relies on the people having arms.
The 2nd amendment does not create a Militia. The provisions for that are in the body of the constitution. I was replying to RAZD's comments on Article 1 Section 8, not the 2nd amendment. The 2nd Amendment prevents The People from being disarmed, because the security of the free state depends on it. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I dunno, they talked differnt back then. How could I even know that?
My point exactly.
Now all you have to do is show how stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun promotes the general Welfare.p. Really? Have you heard of Newtown, CT?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
because there's no such thing as an "assault-type weapon" Gee. We had a ban once. Seems they defined the term then.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: There's no such thing as "ammo for assault-type weapons" because there's no such thing as an "assault-type weapon" - any firearm can be used to assault someone - and they don't use special ammo. Any ammunition designed to wound and kill humans.The 5.56mm and the 7.62 variants and .50cal etc.. Do you think the above munitions are not designed for the sole purpose but to fire with rapid succession, and to inflict bodily damage to human targets? .223 caliber, for instance, is a hunting round.
The .223 is based on the 5.56mm which was designed to be fired in the M16A1 assault rifle. It is the civilian version of the 5.56mmThe 5.56mm was the US answer to the 7.62 russian short which was designed to inflict wounds on the battle field and clogging up the enemies logistics with wounded. Not to mention the psycological impact of soldiers suffering wounds. The 5.56mm was also designed to reduce the weight of the ammo so a soldier could carry more. There's no such thing as a "safe" bullet to be shot with; there was nothing particularly lethal about the firearms used in any of these mass shootings beyond their high capacity magazines There is no such thing as a safe bullet is right. And if Fed law prevented the manufacture and ownership of these types of bullets by civilians we would see a reduction in the use of these types of arms being used in mass shootings."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I dunno, they talked differnt back then. How could I even know that?
My point exactly. Bullshit. Your point was that the amendment didn't mean for people to use their own guns because it said bear them, not own them. But it says keep them to, so you're just wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with people talking differently back then.
Now all you have to do is show how stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun promotes the general Welfare. Really? Have you heard of Newtown, CT? Yeah, we have a real problem with how we treat, or don't treat, mental illness in this country. CT has some of the strictest gun control laws around. Obviously gun control laws don't prevent these trageties. Stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun fails to promote the general Welfare. You're wrong again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
because there's no such thing as an "assault-type weapon"
Gee. We had a ban once. Seems they defined the term then. That stupid ban defined as assault weapons ones that had no business being called as such, and failed to define some that would have better met their goals if banned. It was stupidly based on asthetics by lawmakers who knew next to nothing about how guns work or what made them better for assault. It was an utter farce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And if Fed law prevented the manufacture and ownership of these types of bullets by civilians we would see a reduction in the use of these types of arms being used in mass shootings. It didn't work with drugs, what makes you think it'll work with bullets?
All the stuff you need to make your own bullets already exists and is in the hands of the people. There's nothing to stop the bullets from continuing to exist even thought they've been banned.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024