Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Mass shootings at New Zealand mosques...
Collapse
X
-
Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe second amendment was written in a time when it took over a minute to reload a single shot rifle! How many people do you suppose a shooter wandering into a school could kill with the most advanced rifle of the time before he was subdued? In the end the cost of that potential (and marginal) protection from invasion in this day and age is far too high.
Just have a mandatory service requirement in the actual armed services if you goal is a backdoor public militia. Our society and our technology is not what it was when the 2nd amendment was written. There are a large number of reasons it would have been more reasonable then than it is now. Not the least of which is general psychological make up of the population itself. Too little hard work, too much play, too much idle time, too little respect for time honored moral principles have made us far less of a stable society.
Out of curiosity, how do you plan to reduce the number of felons or mentally unstable people with access to guns without changing and making more restrictive the current set of gun laws?"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNo, you just missed the connection, which was the rather obvious implication in your arguent that increased screening and training of gun owners would somehow reduce our capability to have guns for self-defense. My comment was simply, 'It ain't necessarily so!' There is no reason to assume that keeping guns out of the hands of felons or the mentally unstable would reduce the capacity of responsible, sane people to own a gun for self-defense - if they felt they needed it. It just might make the initial gun purchase take a little while longer.
You don't need an AR15 for self-defense, a pump action shotgun would do just as well, and probably be more likely to actually be effective. And you don't have to worry about the ammo you fire that misses going another 2 miles and killing some kid on his porch. And you don't have to be nearly as good an aim. And the crazies definitely don't need access to an AR15. The potential for mass casualty it just too high to be worth the risk. So while I don't know if an out and out ban is necessary, the bar should be fairly high to obtain it - and keep it.
BTW, two miles on an AR-15 bullet is ridiculous. You can count on your hands the amount of people shot in such a manner because the odds of a bullet maintaining its energy out that far is almost non existent. The LAPD got into a shootout with two armed suspects, back in the 90’s. Hundreds of rounds were exchanged with zero bystanders killed or even shot in the standout. The odds of being hit by a stray round is pretty slim.Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 03-22-2019, 07:26 AM."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe second amendment was written in a time when it took over a minute to reload a single shot rifle!
Jim
As noted previously:
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThis crap has been pounded into a fine pink mist over and over again and again and trotting it out yet again will not change that fact. For instance:
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAs I've repeatedly noted in previous threads the Founding Fathers also had no conception of TV, radio, telephones or the internet but nobody would seriously argue that they shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment.
And they didn't conceive of houses built with modern building materials complete with indoor toilets, electricity, air conditioning and central heating but nobody would seriously maintain that such structures aren't covered by the Fourth Amendment's provision against unlawful searches.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]35804[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]35805[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]35806[/ATTACH]
The whole they only had muskets back then nonsense has repeatedly been beaten into a fine pink mist several times so please do try to keep up. Rifles had been around for a hundred years or so before the 2A was penned. In fact during the Revolutionary War the Continental Congress authorized the establishment of ten companies of riflemen.
Furthermore, there was an assortment of repeating and/or high capacity firearms available in 1787 (when the Constitution was written) and even well before that. Sparko posted a list of some:
Originally posted by Sparko View Postbtw, muskets were not the only weapons available at the time the second amendment was written.
Behold the the assault rifles of the time,
the 16-shot wheel-lock: An oval-bore .67-caliber rifle designed to fire 16 stacked charges of powder and ball in a rapid “Roman candle” fashion. The rifle operated through the use of two wheel locks and one matchlock mounted on the gun.
Circa 1650 – The Kalthoff Repeating Flintlock: As Mike Blessing explains, the Kalthoff Repeating Flintlock came into production in the 1650s, seeing combat in the Siege of Copenhagen in 1659 and later during the Scanian War of 1675 to 1679 -- 132 and 116 years, respectively, before the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. While manufacturing and repair costs kept the Kalthoff out of mass production, it represents the reality that “high capacity” firearms are not a contemporary concept, as some models of the Kalthoff boasted magazines of up to 30 rounds – the same number of rounds in a true standard-capacity AR-15 magazine of today.
Circa 1750 – The Cookson Volitional Repeating Flintlock: A lever-action breech-loading repeater, is one of many similar designs to make an appearance on the world stage beginning in the 17th century. The revolutionary mechanism at the heart of the Cookson repeater dates from 1680 and was originally known in Europe as the Lorenzoni System, named for Italian gunsmith Michele Lorenzoni of Florence. Long arms utilizing this system were produced in other European nations and in the United States until about 1849. The Cookson rifle dates from 1750 and features a two-chamber horizontally mounted rotating drum. After firing the rifle, the cycling process could be repeated until the two magazines, with their seven-shot capacities, were empty. Although other breech loading rifles were introduced in later years, the Cookson-type long arms were unique in their ability to fire multiple shots without reloading.
1777 – The Belton Repeating Flintlock: Philadelphian Joseph Belton’s repeating flintlock design reportedly boasted a 16-to-20 shot capacity, using the superposed load mechanism. Sources indicate there was correspondence between the inventor and the Continental Congress in 1777, as the he had reportedly been commissioned by the Congress to build 100 of his repeaters for the U.S. military, with the order being dismissed solely for cost purposes. This discussion presents strong evidence that the founding fathers were perfectly able to conceive of “high capacity” repeating firearms.
1782-1804 – The Nock Volley Gun: The close quarters of Naval warfare demanded a powerful, yet compact firearm that could provide abundant firepower. The Nock Volley gun fired seven shots all at once from seven clustered bores. This powerful rifle was issued nine years before the dawn on the Second Amendment.
https://www.nrablog.com/articles/201...t-musket-myth/
At least one of them existed nearly 140 years prior to the Constitution. Moreover that list is hardly exhaustive and some were around before the dates given (the earliest Cookson repeating flintlock rifle dates to 1690 for instance).
There was the 32mm Puckle gun patented in 1718 by James Puckle over 7 decades before the Second Amendment. It was a flintlock revolver that was the first firearm to be designated a "machine gun."
There was the high capacity Girandoni air rifle invented in 1779 which had a magazine holding twenty .46 caliber projectiles with an effective range of 150 yards similar to the range of a musket. Lewis and Clark took them on their journey and praised them as being their most effective tool on their cross continental trek.
There was the Kalthoff repeater which was used in the Siege of Copenhagen (1659) during the Second Northern War and remained unmatched in its fire rate until the mid-19th century being capable of firing every couple of seconds.Oops. That's on Sparko's list
There was also the a 40-Bore Flintlock 8-shot repeating magazine Pistol manufactured in the first half of the 1790s but used a system invented around 1660.
Further, "volley guns" which fire a number of shots, either simultaneously or in succession, date back to Medieval times when they were called "organ guns" or a "Ribauldequin." The Nock gun mentioned by Sparko is a type of volley gun. Another type is the "duck's foot" handgun (see below) designed for facing multiple hostile opponents charging in at you (it was a favorite of prison guards and sea captains facing a mutinous crew).
00000000000000ab000-01bb3.jpg
This 4 barreled .52 caliber flintlock pistol dates from c. 1780
With it's 2" long barrels it was made for concealability
00000000000000ab000-01bb3a.jpg
Talk about your "assault weapon" this 8-barreled flintlock
also sported a spiked butt and a barbed blade for use
after all the rounds have been fired.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostSimply opening a jacket to reveal a holstered handgun, chambering a round into a pump 12 gauge shotgun or pointing a handgun at someone armed with a knife or the like can and has deterred the violent intent of many a criminal assailant.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI fail to see the difference in your analogy. I mean, even if people didn't panic and stampede, you'd probably be looking at some consequences just based on the potential harm of your actions.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThere is too much irresponsible and criminal gun use. There are other ways to kill of course. But the other ways available to a normal US citizen are not nearly so easy, nearly so fast, or nearly so distant. Guns, and especially guns with the power and speed of something like an AR15 give a single person way too much power, and only those that have proven they are worthy of that power should be granted access to it.
What's next? Speech licenses to be issued to "only those that have proven they are worthy of that power [and] should be granted access to it"?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou don't need an AR15 for self-defense, a pump action shotgun would do just as well, and probably be more likely to actually be effective. And you don't have to worry about the ammo you fire that misses going another 2 miles and killing some kid on his porch. And you don't have to be nearly as good an aim. And the crazies definitely don't need access to an AR15. The potential for mass casualty it just too high to be worth the risk. So while I don't know if an out and out ban is necessary, the bar should be fairly high to obtain it - and keep it.
Jim
And, you just admitted that a pump shotgun was more effective than an AR but only want to ban the AR? IIRC there are shotguns that will hold up to 25 shells in a drum mag. And since a shotgun is devastating at close range, (you can shoot multiple people in a close crowd with a single shot.
In fact, I once served on a jury of a Manslaughter case where a man was shot in the thigh at close range with bird shot, he bled out from a shredded femoral artery before they could get him to the hospital(and the paramedics arrived within minutes <4 I think> of the shooting). So, your rail against AR's seems to be much ado about nothing...."What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
But- but they look scary! And "AR" stands for "assault rifle"! Right? Right?
(Actually, "AR" refers to the manufacturer. Not to mention that the "assault weapon" designation is meaningless anyway. Nobody who makes or uses guns even recognizes it as a valid category.)Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe second amendment was written in a time when it took over a minute to reload a single shot rifle! How many people do you suppose a shooter wandering into a school could kill with the most advanced rifle of the time before he was subdued? In the end the cost of that potential (and marginal) protection from invasion in this day and age is far too high.
Out of curiosity, how do you plan to reduce the number of felons or mentally unstable people with access to guns without changing and making more restrictive the current set of gun laws?
Jim
Do you think felons who want guns get them legally now? They don't. And unless you have some record of mental illness how do you expect any laws to catch that?
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNo, you just missed the connection, which was the rather obvious implication in your arguent that increased screening and training of gun owners would somehow reduce our capability to have guns for self-defense. My comment was simply, 'It ain't necessarily so!' There is no reason to assume that keeping guns out of the hands of felons or the mentally unstable would reduce the capacity of responsible, sane people to own a gun for self-defense - if they felt they needed it. It just might make the initial gun purchase take a little while longer.
You don't need an AR15 for self-defense, a pump action shotgun would do just as well, and probably be more likely to actually be effective. And you don't have to worry about the ammo you fire that misses going another 2 miles and killing some kid on his porch. And you don't have to be nearly as good an aim. And the crazies definitely don't need access to an AR15. The potential for mass casualty it just too high to be worth the risk. So while I don't know if an out and out ban is necessary, the bar should be fairly high to obtain it - and keep it.
Jim
Maybe I don't want to have my living room covered in brains and guts from using a shotgun. Maybe I am worried about more than one attacker. Maybe I just like the fact that an AR15 doesn't kick as much as a shotgun.
Comment
-
Meanwhile in Missouri:
Missouri Senate Bans All Federal Gun Control Laws in Proposed Bill
Missouri may have just made the most monumental step towards freedom and individual liberty since the signing of the Bill of Rights. In an upcoming vote by Missouri’s state senate, the state is expected to pass a bill that would nullify ALL Federal gun laws and regulations, and make enforcement of those laws by federal officers within the State of Missouri a criminal offense. Republicans control both U.S. Senate seats and more than two-thirds of the seats in both the Missouri House and Senate.
Like it’s predecessor, SB613, Bill SB367 and it’s companion, House Bill HB786, would prevent all state agencies and their employees from enforcing any federal law that infringes the Second Amendment in any way, including gun registrations, fees, fines, licenses and bans. Originally authored in 2014, a former version of the bill was also passed, but vetoed by then Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.
Pro-Gun Legislation with teeth
A stipulation of the newly passed bill states:
“All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”
For added measure, SB367’s authors went into great detail on what federal laws will be “considered null and void and of no effect.”
(a) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(b) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(c) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(e) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens
Such language is designed to guarantee that the measure can’t be worked around or misninterpreted by legislators or law enforcement agencies. This is an example of pro-gun legislation with teeth.
http://thesentinel.net/politics/miss...in-23-10-vote/
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
Out of curiosity, how do you plan to reduce the number of felons or mentally unstable people with access to guns without changing and making more restrictive the current set of gun laws?
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
Um we do background checks already and restrict those people from having guns. Exactly what restrictions would you make to do something we are already doing?
For instance take a look at background checks.
Since firearms dealers ask prospective buyers about prior convictions and the like even before they give them ATF Form 4473 to fill out (which starts the FBI check) and because the vast majority of those applicants who don't pass are rejected because of a prior criminal conviction, restraining order, are fugitives and the like, this actually qualifies as a federal crime -- a felony -- of submitting false information.
But, in one recent year of the approximately 80,000 people who were turned down as a result of a background check only 44 people were prosecuted. 44 out of 80,000.
In the first two years after the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was first set up the Justice Department Inspector General discovered that only 154 people out of 120,000 denials were prosecuted.
Why isn't the government enforcing the laws already on the books rather than wanting new ones? Now, I'm sure a significant portion of those who are rejected didn't realize that they were violating the law (perhaps they didn't realize that their conviction was for a felony or that it happened so long ago that they "forgot") but that can hardly account for such a low prosecution rate.
One explanation was provided by then Vice President Joe Biden when he was asked about this in 2013 while talking to representatives from the National Rifle Association during a White House gun violence task force meeting. According to Jim Baker, the NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, Biden responded, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."
And it appears that, according to Justice Department data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (widely regarded as one of the best researchers on federal prosecution performances and trends), federal prosecutions of firearm violations in general dropped substantially during the Obama Administration[1]. This was verified by a study conducted by the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys which found that there has been a 25% drop in the number of prosecutions of firearm violation cases by the Justice Department recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) than the Bush Administration did.
So before we start passing new laws does it not seem reasonable that we actually start enforcing the laws we already have on the books and begin prosecuting those who willfully lie on federal forms trying to illegally obtain firearms?
As an aside I should note that the Democrats recently defeated an amendment to the proposed Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R. 8) that alert law enforcement authorities when gun buyers fail the background check. Why? Because the provision would also check to see if the person trying to obtain a firearm was an illegal immigrant and if they were inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the illegal act (it's already a violation of federal law for illegals to purchase or possess firearms). It should also be noted that the amendment was based on language introduced by two House Democrats, David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. And yet both of them voted against the amendment[2].
So much for the left's claim that they want to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
1. A similar thing happened during the Clinton Administration. After working so hard to pass the Brady Law and the the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (which prohibited firearms based on their appearance rather than functionality) in 1993 and 1994 respectively of the 23,000 cases that had been referred for prosecution by the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives only arrested 56 people. One of Janet Reno's top aides even testified that they weren't all that interested in such prosecutions (enforcing the laws just passed). They appeared more interested in passing even more laws (which they would likely not enforce either).
2. Later, after the amendment was rejected Republicans employed an obscure rule called "motion to recommit," which allows the minority party to submit last-minute introductions of floor amendments and re-introduced the amendment and it managed to slip through. So how did the House Democratic leadership respond upon discovering this? They are now considering whether they should amend the rules to eliminate motions to recommit.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostBut- but they look scary! And "AR" stands for "assault rifle"! Right? Right?
(Actually, "AR" refers to the manufacturer. Not to mention that the "assault weapon" designation is meaningless anyway. Nobody who makes or uses guns even recognizes it as a valid category.)
That's right, "Assault Weapon" is a wholly fabricated term that was based upon cosmetic appearance.
Senator Feinstein (D-Cal.) and a couple of her staffers essentially thumbed through a firearm catalog and selected any gun that "looked" scary to them[1]. This included things like having a plastic rather than wooden stock, being black instead of brown and having a bayonet lug.
So to absolutely nobody's surprise (except the gun-grabbers on the left and in the MSM[2]) the manufacturers simply made a few cosmetic changes to get around the laws thus merely changing the color and removing a bayonet lug magically transformed them into "not an 'assault weapon'."
Thus, even the staunchly anti-gun Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence groused, "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."
Likewise, the liberal Salon magazine remarked after the assault weapon ban wasn't renewed that it really didn't matter because "This is a rare case where the NRA is right. It says the ban created an artificial distinction between “assault weapons” and other semi-automatic weapons, based almost entirely on cosmetic features."
And the Los Angeles Times (again hardly a bastion of conservative thought and not a supporter of the Second Amendment) also complained that the ban was a joke because it "focused on cosmetics" like flash suppressors and bayonet attachments.
1. This was why it included a pistol that could only hold a single round that after discharging you literally have to break open the firearm from which you had to manually extract the casing (although a few of the newest models included an ejector), put in another round and then close the firearm before it can be fired again. Yeah, a real "assault weapon" there
00000000000000ab000-01bb.jpg
Scary-looking illegal version of the
single-shot Thompson Contender
00000000000000ab000-01bb1.jpg
Completely legal version with absolutely
no functional difference whatsoever
2. Increasingly a distinction without a difference
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostMeanwhile in Missouri:
Missouri Senate Bans All Federal Gun Control Laws in Proposed BillAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
140 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
369 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
112 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
364 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment