|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I don't think this holds. Whenever we look at the originally-proposed versions of early parts of the Constitution, they are always clear, specific, and inline with the mindset we'd expect from post-revolutionaries. The versions that end up in the actual document, however, are always the distilled trash we'd expect as the byproduct of political haggling. If we are looking for intentnot sure why we are, but if we are, the final version is really not the place to look. So you're guessing that Madison himself wanted the clause, but he had to drop it because Congress would never have passed it? Well in that case, again, the omission of the clause tells us what the amendment as actually passed meant. The fact that Congress would only pass it without that clause (if you are right) would be indicative of what they meant it to mean when they voted for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
It was an utter farce. Why farce, a SKS or AK47 is not designed for anything other than shooting humans. If a weapon has a bayonet lug, then chances are it is a military weapon. If it is a military weapon, chances are it is designed for the sole purpose of shooting humans. If someone wants to own such a weapon fine. Let them do so under the same laws one must abide in owning a Uzi or Thompson."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist.
It didn't work with drugs, what makes you think it'll work with bullets? Apples and oranges, the fed does not allow the ownership and sale of fully automatic weapons for civillians, and we do not routinely today read of their use in mass shootings in this country. Why? As far as reloading goes, most folks I know that re load are responsible gun owners and enthusiast. Responsible meaning they keep their guns in a safe."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 |
Why farce It was based on asthetics, not anything that had to do with making a gun an "assault weapon".
a SKS or AK47 is not designed for anything other than shooting humans. First off, if I want to defend myself against humans then I'd like a gun designed for shooting humans. Secondly, I don't give a shit what's its designed for when determining whether people have a right to own it. Even wiki knows this one:
quote: People buy SKS's because they're fucking cool, not because they were designed to shoot humans.
If someone wants to own such a weapon fine. Let them do so under the same laws one must abide in owning a Uzi or Thompson. What, a tax? From Message 273 Apples and oranges, the fed does not allow the ownership and sale of fully automatic weapons for civillians, and we do not routinely today read of their use in mass shootings in this country. Why? Because fully automaic weapons have never been wide spread among the population. Drugs and guns are wide spread. Making them illegal doesn't make them disappear.
As far as reloading goes, most folks I know that re load are responsible gun owners and enthusiast. Responsible meaning they keep their guns in a safe. And? Most of the people that I know that own guns are responsible gun owners. The point was that making bullets illegal isn't going to cause a reduction in their use when people can just make their bullets themselves if they want to. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
First off, if I want to defend myself against humans then I'd like a gun designed for shooting humans. Sure, this follows. So should you not consider a fully automatic weapon with a high capacity mag? Why half step?
People buy SKS's because they're fucking cool, not because they were designed to shoot humans. There are lots of cool shit out there. If I thought hand grenades were cool would it follow I should be able to go to Walmart and buy one? If not why?"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
All of the records for fastest rate of fire of conventional firearms (as distinguished from high-tech "caseless" autofire weapons) are set with revolvers.
Yes. But that was by extremely proficient and well trained individuals.Another strawman. Whudda thunk. I never stated anything about a semi-auto have faster rate of fire than a revolver. How about you keep the random shit out of the conversation. "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. No shit. But semi autos are fed by a clip. A clip can hold more rounds than a revolver. Logical extension of the term semi-auto. Show me a non-semi auto that can hold more rounds than a semi auto and you might have a point.
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. Lets start at end and work our way back.
the M1 Garand, itself originally a hunting rifle chambered for .30-06.
No. Developed at United States Springfield Armory for military use.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. This is incorrect and a regular myth presented by a lot of people. When Eugen Stoner first met the Armalite people they were testing a lightweight caliber survival rifle. That was not eh AR-10 that Stoner designed, it was a different weapon completely that never got very far. 7.62x51mm NATO is roughly the .308 Winchester. This would be a medium weight caliber. This is not a lightweight caliber. Compare the AR-10 to other survival rifles. Completely different animals. the AR-10 was developed to compete to replace the M1 Garand, not as a survival rifle.
In other words it was a hunting weapon.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.No AR-10's were sold as hunting rifles. This was a military rifle from beginning to end. You could do some basic research to know this. quote:Source Any civilian Ar-10's came from the military surplus market. You seemingly know nothing about guns.
Is that irony?
The Bushmaster .223 is accurate to within 2" at 300 yards, using the right ammo, accessories, and barrel.
That would be a non-standard match quality Bushmaster. Not one rigged as a "hunting" rifle. I have gotten 5" groups at 200 yards with a match quality .556 rifle. I can shoot 3" groups with an off the shelf Ruger M77 Hawkeye in 7mm-08 at the same distance. Off the shelf Assault style rifle and it is typical to get about 8" group at 200 yards.
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.
Strawman again. Though I discount your contention that a semi auto is "more" accurate than a bolt or single shot rifle. Have you shot a Thompson single shot rifle? It isn't whether the rifle is semi auto or bolt. It is what it is designed for. Hunting is different than throwing lead.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
The facts are that 70% of all violent crimes are caused by people raised by Single Mothers. We all KNOW this intuitively, because we fear the inner cities where America corrals these Welfare Women and raise their kids together so they all fail school and gang together in a fatherless community. A second fact is that single fire hand guns kill about 4000 young inner city people every year, which is half of all murders in America. While people like those posting here avoid these truths and focus on arguments about blaming the gun, instead of the Culture in America, the blood continues to flow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
The facts are that 70% of all violent crimes are caused by people raised by Single Mothers.
Any support for this?
A second fact is that single fire hand guns kill about 4000 young inner city people every year, which is half of all murders in America.
Support? What is a single fire handgun? Can you give an example? Maybe you might want to try to supply facts.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 |
Sure, this follows. So should you not consider a fully automatic weapon with a high capacity mag? Why half step? Simple: I can't afford a full-auto. On the other hand, I'd prolly be in my house and wouldn't want to wreck the place.
There are lots of cool shit out there. If I thought hand grenades were cool would it follow I should be able to go to Walmart and buy one? If not why? First off, grenades are not firearms and you don't have a right to own them. Secondly, unlike firearms, destructive devices are just too dangerous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Catholic Scientist writes: Secondly, unlike firearms, destructive devices are just too dangerous. The NRA just asked me to pass this note on to you:
The NRA writes: "Please stop, you're not helping." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't give a fuck about the NRA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Seems they defined the term then. As CS has noted in the past, the legal definition of "assault weapons" in the assault weapons ban was so legally incoherent that it succeeded in functionally banning approximately zero weapons. Most weapons interdicted under the assault weapons ban were simply re-released with alternate cosmetics. Also, as my pro-gun friend constantly reminds me, the Federal assault weapons ban was associated with an increase in gun deaths.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Any ammunition designed to wound and kill humans. There's no ammunition that won't kill and wound humans. Any ammunition designed for hunting - to cleanly kill animals up to and including moose, bears, and other large mammals - is necessarily going to have features that improve lethality towards humans. We're talking about pieces of metal flying out of guns at high speed, here. There's not going to be a way to have them do so in a way that is lethal to deer but safe for humans.
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 5.56mm No, you have it backwards. The 5.56mm is the militarized version of the Remington .223.
The 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. All bullets are designed to inflict wounds.
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. So they'd kill just as many people with different types of arms, chambered for different rounds. I don't understand your obsession with the caliber of round fired; is it your misapprehension that the Sandy Hook shooter would have killed less children if he had been forced to fire .30-06, instead?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Catholic Scientist writes: I don't give a fuck about the NRA. Obviously. And this just in:
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence writes: "Please, do go on about how firearms aren't destructive." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
If a weapon has a bayonet lug, then chances are it is a military weapon. I don't believe the Bushmaster .223 has a bayonet lug, but if it did, it wasn't essential to the function of the weapon as a semi-automatic rifle in .223 caliber. The Sandy Hook shooter didn't kill even a single child with a bayonet or it's lug. So how would it have helped if he had been required to use weapons without bayonet lugs?
If it is a military weapon, chances are it is designed for the sole purpose of shooting humans. I don't understand why you think shooting a person is such a unique engineering challenge that a gun meant to kill a person must be somehow functionally distinct from a gun meant to kill something else. Generally the engineering focus of the design of a firearm is about safety, accuracy, shooter comfort, and reliability in various environments and usage scenarios. Militaries test a wide variety of firearms when they decide to equip their soldiers, but they don't test them by how many people they can kill with them. They assess firearms based on their safety, accuracy, versatility, and reliability under stress conditions. That's what makes a gun a "military" gun - being safe, being accurate, being versatile, and being reliable. I don't understand the perspective that says that we'd all be safer if civilians were allowed only to own guns that were inaccurate and unreliable. That seems a lot worse.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024