USA needs more gun control! - Page 7

Toontown · 5th October 2017, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

None of your business.

Very well then. I will meekly decline to ask any more inconvenient questions about why some people demand to have the ability to murder me quickly and conveniently.

I will quietly study their psychology. I will come to understand them better than they understand themselves.

The Don · 5th October 2017, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Hungry81

I consulted a thesaurus and nowhere could I find equipped as a synonom for regulated and vice versa. Can you provide a source or sources that shows regulated meant equipped back then?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Here's something from Constitution.org (cannot comment on the quality of the source)

Quote:

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Ranb · 5th October 2017, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

To be fair, ....

Who knows.

Quote:

I imagine manually bump-firing is a skill that is harder to master than using a bump stock. Yes?

You are probably right, but while I had a hard time dumping whole mags either way with an AR-15. bump firing without the slide fire was also very rapid. I didn't try it with a 308 as I'm not sure if I can control it properly.

I've never considered bump fire to be any kind of a good substitute for aimed fire.

Ranb · 5th October 2017, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

So what about the idea of taxing guns the way we tax cigarettes ?

There's an 11% tax scheme and $200/item already in place. If they were interested in using the money for the things you propose, they would do so.

Ranb · 5th October 2017, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Yes, if we ban bump stocks only criminals will possess them.

I think I've answered your questions. Can you perhaps answer the questions I've had about your claims? What good does banning slide fire stocks do when bump fire is something that will happen anyway?

Toontown · 5th October 2017, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

....They can't wrap their head about the fact that other opinions matter. Many of these people vote, some of them hold office.

So, what is there to be done about these opinions? Have you ever seen one change?

Ranb · 5th October 2017, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Toontown

So, what is there to be done about these opinions? Have you ever seen one change?

Yes, educate a person about the things they want to control. I was able to convince my local Democrat Representative to co-sponsor a silencer use bill after talking to her and showing her the firearms in question. She had initially been on the fence. I was also able to convince a committee chair to allow the bill a vote in committee after obtaining the opinions of the police and gun control organization.

Education is the key; either way you go. That way they (the politicians) aren't the doofuss who thinks bump fire turns a rifle into a military weapon. In the case of slide fire stocks a demonstration would be a good idea. They might decide it's futile to do so, or they might decide that it allows a person to bump fire easier or encourages them to do so. They might also be convinced that bump fire is better or worse than aimed fire.

3point14 · 5th October 2017, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

Yes, educate a person about the things they want to control. I was able to convince my local Democrat Representative to co-sponsor a silencer use bill after talking to her and showing her the firearms in question. She had initially been on the fence.

It's much, much easier to persuade someone standing on the fence to climb down on your side of it than it is to persuade them to climb over it altogether.

I think, as well, that the issue of gun control legislation is separate from the issue of enforcement of gun control legislation.

Toontown · 5th October 2017, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Toontown

Exactly what situation are people preparing for which requires an individual to be able to kill 50 people in 10 seconds?

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

None of your business.

Originally Posted by Metullus

Who are they?

None of your business.

Well. This is great. I feel so...educated.

BobTheCoward · 5th October 2017, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Toontown

None of your business.

Well. This is great. I feel so...educated.

It is also none of your business who I vote for or if I use birth control.

applecorped · 5th October 2017, 06:56 AM

Now with 1% more gun control!

Dr. Keith · 5th October 2017, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

Either have the courage to make that particular argument, together with an argument that gun rights ain't worth the harm, or just let it go.

I don't lack the courage, I lack the interest to wade deep into the mud to only come out of it muddy. Been there, done that. If you want my thoughts on what could be done click the "ban" link in my sig, or read some of BStrong's suggestions, or any other suggestions from actual gun owners who see that there is a problem and have thought about ways to address it. It doesn't matter which because none will make any headway.

Quote:

Or if the accessibility of guns isn't the issue, then what is?

The the issue is cultural. As I said in my first post in this thread, we as a people need to decide we don't like these events more than we like our unfettered access to guns. Just as we decided that we didn't like the deaths associated with drunk driving more than we liked our freedom to drive even if we had a few drinks.

The vast majority of drivers over the limit made it home safe the vast majority of the time. That didn't keep us from trying to address the problems associated with drinking and driving.

Toontown · 5th October 2017, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

It is also none of your business who I vote for or if I use birth control.

Then is is likewise not your business to tell me what my business is.

You assert the right to have the ability to quickly and conveniently riddle my body with bullets.

I reciprocally assert the right to have the ability to quickly and conveniently find out whatever I want to know about you.

TheL8Elvis · 5th October 2017, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Originally Posted by Craig B

Recoil operation is common.

Interesting article, I learned stuff

Originally Posted by Bob001

Here's one writer's sensible-sounding gun control proposal: Just prohibit civilian ownership of all gas-operated weapons.

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/04/gun...ass-shootings/

It's especially interesting to note the extraordinary weapons safety precautions that soldiers were required to follow when he was an officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention stateside. Active-duty soldiers in combat zones are subject to requirements -- under penalty of court-martial -- that don't apply to civilians in American suburbs. Kinda punctures that whole "we're all militia" argument.

With perhaps this recoil caveat, this seems like a reasonable idea ... therefor I assuming I must be missing something .... what am I missing ?

Bringing this from the vegas shooting thread because it seemed better suited here, and I would like to see some further discussion from people more knowledgeable than I...

BobTheCoward · 5th October 2017, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Toontown

Then is is likewise not your business to tell me what my business is.

You assert the right to have the ability to quickly and conveniently riddle my body with bullets.

I reciprocally assert the right to have the ability to quickly and conveniently find out whatever I want to know about you.

You absolutely do have the ability to that. I favor meritocracy. I ask for no protection from the potential of your ability to acquire information.

Toontown · 5th October 2017, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

You absolutely do have the ability to that. I favor meritocracy. I ask for no protection from the potential of your ability to acquire information.

Would you ask for any protection from a group of American citizens who have the means and the will to construct a hydrogen bomb?

I understand that it would be none of your business why they want to build the bomb. We've covered that.

BobTheCoward · 5th October 2017, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Toontown

Would you ask for any protection from a group of American citizens who have the means and the will to construct a hydrogen bomb?

I understand that it would be none of your business why they want to build the bomb. We've covered that.

No.

Toontown · 5th October 2017, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

No.

What if more than 90% of the population immediately stops giving a rat's ass what you think as soon as you tell them, and go their own way, which includes relieving you of your ability to quickly and conveniently riddle them with bullets?

Giz · 5th October 2017, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Bringing this from the vegas shooting thread because it seemed better suited here, and I would like to see some further discussion from people more knowledgeable than I...

It's a very strong proposal. Banning ALL semi-automatic pistols and rifles.

In terms of public acceptance, such an extreme measure seems likely to be counter productive.

In terms of legislative possibility... you'd need to repeal the second amendment before even starting on the ban legislation.

Can't really see that article doing anything more than poisoning the well and drum up some more fear-contributions to the NRA ("see, they really are coming for our guns!").

BobTheCoward · 5th October 2017, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Toontown

What if more than 90% of the population immediately stops giving a rat's ass what you think as soon as you tell them, and go their own way, which includes relieving you of your ability to quickly and conveniently riddle them with bullets?

I'm an atheist. 90% of the world has always disagreed with me.

Kestrel · 5th October 2017, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I see. Make sure they have lost of guns. Forget making sure they are suitable to have those guns and they can be trusted with them. Forget training. Just make sure they have massive firepower.

What could possibly go wrong....?

Most people believe that the government does not have the authority to require training for the militia. But in fact that authority is spelled out in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution:

Quote:

The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Congress sets the rules, the state do the training.

The gun lobby has perverted this by proclaiming that carrying firearms without having to take a training class is "Constitutional Carry".

On a related matter, how can the militia be organized when the firearms held by it's members are kept secret from those doing the organizing?

BobTheCoward · 5th October 2017, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Most people believe that the government does not have the authority to require training for the militia. But in fact that authority is spelled out in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution:

Congress sets the rules, the state do the training.

The gun lobby has perverted this by proclaiming that carrying firearms without having to take a training class is "Constitutional Carry".

On a related matter, how can the militia be organized when the firearms held by it's members are kept secret from those doing the organizing?

Doesnt matter. The opening line to the second amendment provides no limit to it. It could say "in order to fight Cthulhu" and it would be as equally limiting.

Civet · 5th October 2017, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Bringing this from the vegas shooting thread because it seemed better suited here, and I would like to see some further discussion from people more knowledgeable than I...

If he wants to ban semiautomatics he should have just said that instead of focusing on the "gas operated" aspect which he inaccurately thinks applies to all semiautomatics. I can't imagine an absolute ban on semiautomatics being likely to survive SCOTUS review or gather anywhere near enough public support to even get to that point. Useless idea badly presented.

Kestrel · 5th October 2017, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I have to admit that unless there is a really good reason that no-one should have access to a weapon, then rather then outright banning them, a restriction on who can have them is better, with those that want them needing to show a good reason why they should be allowed to have them.

Australia didn't ban all guns. They defined categories of firearms, created licensing requirements for each category and conditions for using that license. To get a license you had to demonstrate a need. A license for a bolt action rifle for hunting or target shooting is fairly easy to obtain. Licenses for semi automatic rifles or handguns are highly restricted.

BobTheCoward · 5th October 2017, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Australia didn't ban all guns. They defined categories of firearms, created licensing requirements for each category and conditions for using that license. To get a license you had to demonstrate a need. A license for a bolt action rifle for hunting or target shooting is fairly easy to obtain. Licenses for semi automatic rifles or handguns are highly restricted.

That is more reprehensible.

Toontown · 5th October 2017, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I'm an atheist. 90% of the world has always disagreed with me.

That's none of my business. I'm just trying to understand what "meritocracy" means.

Might makes right? In that case, the majority has the ability to impose it's collective will on you. And, after learning of your willingness to allow the unrestricted construction of weapons of mass destruction by anyone who has the ability...

Is it a synonym for "death wish"?

Right. None of my business. We'll just have to wait and see.

BobTheCoward · 5th October 2017, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Toontown

That's none of my business. I'm just trying to understand what "meritocracy" means.

Might makes right? In that case, the majority has the ability to impose it's collective will on you. And, after learning of your willingness to allow the unrestricted construction of weapons of mass destruction by anyone who has the ability...

Is it a synonym for "death wish"?

Right. None of my business. We'll just have to wait and see.

Meritocracy as a form of government based on selecting leaders by ability (the secretary of the interior should be the most knowledgeable and effective citizen on interior matters).

Broadly, it can be used to refer to anything where ability is a primary determinant. For example, people might claim pay in football is a meritocracy as justification for salaries. This is how I used it.

Meritocracy is not might makes right and majoritarianism.

TheL8Elvis · 5th October 2017, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Giz

It's a very strong proposal. Banning ALL semi-automatic pistols and rifles.

In terms of public acceptance, such an extreme measure seems likely to be counter productive.

In terms of legislative possibility... you'd need to repeal the second amendment before even starting on the ban legislation.

Can't really see that article doing anything more than poisoning the well and drum up some more fear-contributions to the NRA ("see, they really are coming for our guns!").

Originally Posted by Civet

If he wants to ban semiautomatics he should have just said that instead of focusing on the "gas operated" aspect which he inaccurately thinks applies to al semiautomatics. I can't imagine an absolute ban on semiautomatics being likely to survive SCOTUS review or gather anywhere near enough public support to even get to that point. Useless idea badly presented.

I believe the "gun culture" has to change first, but I thought this was a conversation starter.

Not sure how this type of action would be constitutionally different than the Federal assault weapon ban, but I'm sure people with more knowledge in this are could point to some resources ??

I don't want to re-invent the wheel here, and I've tried to stay out of most of the "swimming pools kill more people than guns" threads, but this piqued my curiosity, and I guess I didn't see why it was an useless conversation about an impossible task - not to say it ssn't, just that I don't know why, and was looking for some more conversation around that.

Civet · 5th October 2017, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Not sure how this type of action would be constitutionally different than the Federal assault weapon ban, but I'm sure people with more knowledge in this are could point to some resources ??

With the Heller decision, I think we're dealing with a Supreme Court more deferential to the right to bear arms than we'd previously seen. I think they'd be inclined to interpret the "in common use" concept to protect semiautomatics. A piece of the key language would be this:

Quote:

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

Now I know that courts can change their views and that could well happen down the road but I don't think the current composition of the court is conducive to changing that position.

Toontown · 5th October 2017, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Meritocracy as a form of government based on selecting leaders by ability (the secretary of the interior should be the most knowledgeable and effective citizen on interior matters).

Broadly, it can be used to refer to anything where ability is a primary determinant. For example, people might claim pay in football is a meritocracy as justification for salaries. This is how I used it.

Meritocracy is not might makes right and majoritarianism.

Ah.

Article 1. The right to aquire the means to quickly and conveniently commit mass murder for any reason which is none of anybody's business shall not be abridged.

Article 2. The right to attempt to learn the motives of a person who amasses the means to commit mass murder shall not be abridged.

Article 3. The taking of proactive measures, ostensibly or actually for the protection of the general public against the aquisition and potential use of weapons of mass destruction, is prohibited.

Article 4. Article (3) is hereby amended to declare the following: proactive measures, the purpose of which is nobody's business, are allowed, provided that a demonstrable ability to successfully carry out such action exists.

Article 5. Article (3) and article (4) are hereby repealed and transferred into the domain of Executive Privilege*.

Ranb · 5th October 2017, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Bringing this from the vegas shooting thread because it seemed better suited here, and I would like to see some further discussion from people more knowledgeable than I...

The link to the article; https://www.salon.com/2017/10/04/gun...ass-shootings/

My response to the article in the other thread; http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12021406

I think the author is uninformed and has a low opinion of his readers.

ponderingturtle · 5th October 2017, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

Suck and useless are not the same thing. I also explained why I cared in post #179.

Do you think that spraying lots of ammo with a sloppy grip on a rifle at long range is more or less effective than a firm steady hold while aiming each shot? Based on my experience, I'd go with aiming each shot. Less ammo, less time, more casualties.

yea this guy was no Lee Harvey Oswald.

Ranb · 5th October 2017, 10:53 AM

I would say he was no Charles Whitman.

William Parcher · 5th October 2017, 10:54 AM

Republican-led bill on bump stocks expected to be introduced Thursday in House

Originally Posted by CNN

Florida Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo is planning to introduce legislation Thursday to ban the sale of bump fire stocks, an accessory that can allow semi-automatic firearms to rapidly increase their rate of firing rounds, similar to that of an automatic weapon, which are banned by federal law.

"I think we are on the verge of a breakthrough when it comes to sensible gun policy," Curbelo told reporters Thursday, saying his office has been "flooded" with calls from other lawmakers asking about the bill.

He said that the shooting in Las Vegas, where the shooter appeared to modify several weapons with bump stocks to fire rounds more quickly, demonstrated that these devices, are in his opinion at the "outer limits of what the law allows, in this case something that we strongly believe should be illegal."

"This is such a blatant exploitation of the law, circumvention of the law, that the growing bipartisan consensus is a product of," Curbelo said about the shift after years of inaction by majority of congressional Republicans on gun legislation.

Curbelo's comments follow those of House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who signaled openness Thursday to looking into bump fire stocks, and other Republicans have shown an openness to at least discussing a ban on the devices.

In the wake of the Vegas shooting, Ryan told Hugh Hewitt in an interview for his MSNBC show that "clearly that's something we need to look into."...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politi...rol/index.html

bobdroege7 · 5th October 2017, 10:59 AM

A well regulated militia...

This part could be interpreted to mean the government has the authority to decide which kinds of arms a militia could bear.

So the government could ban semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

William Parcher · 5th October 2017, 11:53 AM

Press Secretary Sarah Sanders just said this...

"At this point in the process, I think we need to all take a step back. We had one of the most horrific tragedies that's ever taken place on US soil. Before we can run out and start talking about the preventions... we have to determine what caused it. We haven’t gotten that far down the road. The President is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. That hasn’t changed."

BobTheCoward · 5th October 2017, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Toontown

Article 4. Article (3) is hereby amended to declare the following: proactive measures, the purpose of which is nobody's business, are allowed, provided that a demonstrable ability to successfully carry out such action exists.

I didn't mean as a government power. I meant an individual using their ability... searching the internet, asking questions, etc.

Civet · 5th October 2017, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Press Secretary Sarah Sanders just said this...

"At this point in the process, I think we need to all take a step back. We had one of the most horrific tragedies that's ever taken place on US soil. Before we can run out and start talking about the preventions... we have to determine what caused it. We haven’t gotten that far down the road. The President is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. That hasn’t changed."

Unsurprising, but I'll treat her comments as meaningless until Trumps tweets about his position on bump fire devices. His entire conception of the subject could be changed by one person getting him to watch a YouTube video.

BobTheCoward · 5th October 2017, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

A well regulated militia...

This part could be interpreted to mean the government has the authority to decide which kinds of arms a militia could bear.

So the government could ban semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

Nope. Completely meaningless. It doesn't any way restrict the right of the people.

Bob001 · 5th October 2017, 12:15 PM

Here's what you have to do to buy a shotgun in Japan:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...305_story.html

5th October 2017, 06:01 AM	#241
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward None of your business. Very well then. I will meekly decline to ask any more inconvenient questions about why some people demand to have the ability to murder me quickly and conveniently. I will quietly study their psychology. I will come to understand them better than they understand themselves.
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	__________________ "I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

5th October 2017, 06:11 AM	#246
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	Originally Posted by Ranb ....They can't wrap their head about the fact that other opinions matter. Many of these people vote, some of them hold office. So, what is there to be done about these opinions? Have you ever seen one change?
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	__________________ "I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

5th October 2017, 06:32 AM	#248
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 15,178	Originally Posted by Ranb Yes, educate a person about the things they want to control. I was able to convince my local Democrat Representative to co-sponsor a silencer use bill after talking to her and showing her the firearms in question. She had initially been on the fence. It's much, much easier to persuade someone standing on the fence to climb down on your side of it than it is to persuade them to climb over it altogether. I think, as well, that the issue of gun control legislation is separate from the issue of enforcement of gun control legislation.
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 15,178	__________________ Up the River!

5th October 2017, 06:40 AM	#249
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	Originally Posted by Toontown Exactly what situation are people preparing for which requires an individual to be able to kill 50 people in 10 seconds? Originally Posted by BobTheCoward None of your business. Originally Posted by Metullus Who are they? None of your business. Well. This is great. I feel so...educated.
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	__________________ "I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

5th October 2017, 06:56 AM	#251
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 18,187	Now with 1% more gun control!
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

5th October 2017, 06:05 AM	#242
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 25,003	Originally Posted by Hungry81 I consulted a thesaurus and nowhere could I find equipped as a synonom for regulated and vice versa. Can you provide a source or sources that shows regulated meant equipped back then? Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk Here's something from Constitution.org (cannot comment on the quality of the source) Quote: The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

5th October 2017, 06:06 AM	#243
Ranb Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 9,122	Originally Posted by smartcooky To be fair, .... Who knows. Quote: I imagine manually bump-firing is a skill that is harder to master than using a bump stock. Yes? You are probably right, but while I had a hard time dumping whole mags either way with an AR-15. bump firing without the slide fire was also very rapid. I didn't try it with a 308 as I'm not sure if I can control it properly. I've never considered bump fire to be any kind of a good substitute for aimed fire.

5th October 2017, 06:08 AM	#244
Ranb Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 9,122	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza So what about the idea of taxing guns the way we tax cigarettes ? There's an 11% tax scheme and $200/item already in place. If they were interested in using the money for the things you propose, they would do so.

5th October 2017, 06:11 AM	#245
Ranb Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 9,122	Originally Posted by Hercules56 Yes, if we ban bump stocks only criminals will possess them. I think I've answered your questions. Can you perhaps answer the questions I've had about your claims? What good does banning slide fire stocks do when bump fire is something that will happen anyway?

5th October 2017, 06:19 AM	#247
Ranb Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 9,122	Originally Posted by Toontown So, what is there to be done about these opinions? Have you ever seen one change? Yes, educate a person about the things they want to control. I was able to convince my local Democrat Representative to co-sponsor a silencer use bill after talking to her and showing her the firearms in question. She had initially been on the fence. I was also able to convince a committee chair to allow the bill a vote in committee after obtaining the opinions of the police and gun control organization. Education is the key; either way you go. That way they (the politicians) aren't the doofuss who thinks bump fire turns a rifle into a military weapon. In the case of slide fire stocks a demonstration would be a good idea. They might decide it's futile to do so, or they might decide that it allows a person to bump fire easier or encourages them to do so. They might also be convinced that bump fire is better or worse than aimed fire.

5th October 2017, 06:47 AM	#250
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 13,354	Originally Posted by Toontown None of your business. Well. This is great. I feel so...educated. It is also none of your business who I vote for or if I use birth control.

5th October 2017, 07:09 AM	#252
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 15,795	Originally Posted by phiwum Either have the courage to make that particular argument, together with an argument that gun rights ain't worth the harm, or just let it go. I don't lack the courage, I lack the interest to wade deep into the mud to only come out of it muddy. Been there, done that. If you want my thoughts on what could be done click the "ban" link in my sig, or read some of BStrong's suggestions, or any other suggestions from actual gun owners who see that there is a problem and have thought about ways to address it. It doesn't matter which because none will make any headway. Quote: Or if the accessibility of guns isn't the issue, then what is? The the issue is cultural. As I said in my first post in this thread, we as a people need to decide we don't like these events more than we like our unfettered access to guns. Just as we decided that we didn't like the deaths associated with drunk driving more than we liked our freedom to drive even if we had a few drinks. The vast majority of drivers over the limit made it home safe the vast majority of the time. That didn't keep us from trying to address the problems associated with drinking and driving.
	__________________ I once proposed a fun ban. Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

5th October 2017, 07:12 AM	#253
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward It is also none of your business who I vote for or if I use birth control. Then is is likewise not your business to tell me what my business is. You assert the right to have the ability to quickly and conveniently riddle my body with bullets. I reciprocally assert the right to have the ability to quickly and conveniently find out whatever I want to know about you.
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	__________________ "I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

5th October 2017, 07:14 AM	#254
TheL8Elvis Philosopher Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 8,096	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Originally Posted by Craig B Recoil operation is common. Interesting article, I learned stuff Originally Posted by Bob001 Here's one writer's sensible-sounding gun control proposal: Just prohibit civilian ownership of all gas-operated weapons. https://www.salon.com/2017/10/04/gun...ass-shootings/ It's especially interesting to note the extraordinary weapons safety precautions that soldiers were required to follow when he was an officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention stateside. Active-duty soldiers in combat zones are subject to requirements -- under penalty of court-martial -- that don't apply to civilians in American suburbs. Kinda punctures that whole "we're all militia" argument. With perhaps this recoil caveat, this seems like a reasonable idea ... therefor I assuming I must be missing something .... what am I missing ? Bringing this from the vegas shooting thread because it seemed better suited here, and I would like to see some further discussion from people more knowledgeable than I...
TheL8Elvis Philosopher Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 8,096	__________________ "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov

5th October 2017, 07:35 AM	#255
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 13,354	Originally Posted by Toontown Then is is likewise not your business to tell me what my business is. You assert the right to have the ability to quickly and conveniently riddle my body with bullets. I reciprocally assert the right to have the ability to quickly and conveniently find out whatever I want to know about you. You absolutely do have the ability to that. I favor meritocracy. I ask for no protection from the potential of your ability to acquire information.

5th October 2017, 07:49 AM	#256
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward You absolutely do have the ability to that. I favor meritocracy. I ask for no protection from the potential of your ability to acquire information. Would you ask for any protection from a group of American citizens who have the means and the will to construct a hydrogen bomb? I understand that it would be none of your business why they want to build the bomb. We've covered that.
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	__________________ "I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

5th October 2017, 07:50 AM	#257
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 13,354	Originally Posted by Toontown Would you ask for any protection from a group of American citizens who have the means and the will to construct a hydrogen bomb? I understand that it would be none of your business why they want to build the bomb. We've covered that. No.

5th October 2017, 08:19 AM	#258
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward No. What if more than 90% of the population immediately stops giving a rat's ass what you think as soon as you tell them, and go their own way, which includes relieving you of your ability to quickly and conveniently riddle them with bullets?
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	__________________ "I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

5th October 2017, 08:32 AM	#259
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,252	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Bringing this from the vegas shooting thread because it seemed better suited here, and I would like to see some further discussion from people more knowledgeable than I... It's a very strong proposal. Banning ALL semi-automatic pistols and rifles. In terms of public acceptance, such an extreme measure seems likely to be counter productive. In terms of legislative possibility... you'd need to repeal the second amendment before even starting on the ban legislation. Can't really see that article doing anything more than poisoning the well and drum up some more fear-contributions to the NRA ("see, they really are coming for our guns!").
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,252

5th October 2017, 08:56 AM	#260
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 13,354	Originally Posted by Toontown What if more than 90% of the population immediately stops giving a rat's ass what you think as soon as you tell them, and go their own way, which includes relieving you of your ability to quickly and conveniently riddle them with bullets? I'm an atheist. 90% of the world has always disagreed with me.

5th October 2017, 09:16 AM	#261
Kestrel Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,900	Originally Posted by Nessie I see. Make sure they have lost of guns. Forget making sure they are suitable to have those guns and they can be trusted with them. Forget training. Just make sure they have massive firepower. What could possibly go wrong....? Most people believe that the government does not have the authority to require training for the militia. But in fact that authority is spelled out in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution: Quote: The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Congress sets the rules, the state do the training. The gun lobby has perverted this by proclaiming that carrying firearms without having to take a training class is "Constitutional Carry". On a related matter, how can the militia be organized when the firearms held by it's members are kept secret from those doing the organizing?

5th October 2017, 09:22 AM	#262
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 13,354	Originally Posted by Kestrel Most people believe that the government does not have the authority to require training for the militia. But in fact that authority is spelled out in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution: Congress sets the rules, the state do the training. The gun lobby has perverted this by proclaiming that carrying firearms without having to take a training class is "Constitutional Carry". On a related matter, how can the militia be organized when the firearms held by it's members are kept secret from those doing the organizing? Doesnt matter. The opening line to the second amendment provides no limit to it. It could say "in order to fight Cthulhu" and it would be as equally limiting.

5th October 2017, 09:22 AM	#263
Civet Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,598	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Bringing this from the vegas shooting thread because it seemed better suited here, and I would like to see some further discussion from people more knowledgeable than I... If he wants to ban semiautomatics he should have just said that instead of focusing on the "gas operated" aspect which he inaccurately thinks applies to all semiautomatics. I can't imagine an absolute ban on semiautomatics being likely to survive SCOTUS review or gather anywhere near enough public support to even get to that point. Useless idea badly presented.
Civet Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,598	Last edited by Civet; 5th October 2017 at 09:35 AM.

5th October 2017, 09:31 AM	#264
Kestrel Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,900	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf I have to admit that unless there is a really good reason that no-one should have access to a weapon, then rather then outright banning them, a restriction on who can have them is better, with those that want them needing to show a good reason why they should be allowed to have them. Australia didn't ban all guns. They defined categories of firearms, created licensing requirements for each category and conditions for using that license. To get a license you had to demonstrate a need. A license for a bolt action rifle for hunting or target shooting is fairly easy to obtain. Licenses for semi automatic rifles or handguns are highly restricted.

5th October 2017, 09:35 AM	#265
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 13,354	Originally Posted by Kestrel Australia didn't ban all guns. They defined categories of firearms, created licensing requirements for each category and conditions for using that license. To get a license you had to demonstrate a need. A license for a bolt action rifle for hunting or target shooting is fairly easy to obtain. Licenses for semi automatic rifles or handguns are highly restricted. That is more reprehensible.

5th October 2017, 09:39 AM	#266
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I'm an atheist. 90% of the world has always disagreed with me. That's none of my business. I'm just trying to understand what "meritocracy" means. Might makes right? In that case, the majority has the ability to impose it's collective will on you. And, after learning of your willingness to allow the unrestricted construction of weapons of mass destruction by anyone who has the ability... Is it a synonym for "death wish"? Right. None of my business. We'll just have to wait and see.
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	__________________ "I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

5th October 2017, 09:43 AM	#267
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 13,354	Originally Posted by Toontown That's none of my business. I'm just trying to understand what "meritocracy" means. Might makes right? In that case, the majority has the ability to impose it's collective will on you. And, after learning of your willingness to allow the unrestricted construction of weapons of mass destruction by anyone who has the ability... Is it a synonym for "death wish"? Right. None of my business. We'll just have to wait and see. Meritocracy as a form of government based on selecting leaders by ability (the secretary of the interior should be the most knowledgeable and effective citizen on interior matters). Broadly, it can be used to refer to anything where ability is a primary determinant. For example, people might claim pay in football is a meritocracy as justification for salaries. This is how I used it. Meritocracy is not might makes right and majoritarianism.
	Last edited by BobTheCoward; 5th October 2017 at 09:44 AM.

5th October 2017, 09:44 AM	#268
TheL8Elvis Philosopher Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 8,096	Originally Posted by Giz It's a very strong proposal. Banning ALL semi-automatic pistols and rifles. In terms of public acceptance, such an extreme measure seems likely to be counter productive. In terms of legislative possibility... you'd need to repeal the second amendment before even starting on the ban legislation. Can't really see that article doing anything more than poisoning the well and drum up some more fear-contributions to the NRA ("see, they really are coming for our guns!"). Originally Posted by Civet If he wants to ban semiautomatics he should have just said that instead of focusing on the "gas operated" aspect which he inaccurately thinks applies to al semiautomatics. I can't imagine an absolute ban on semiautomatics being likely to survive SCOTUS review or gather anywhere near enough public support to even get to that point. Useless idea badly presented. I believe the "gun culture" has to change first, but I thought this was a conversation starter. Not sure how this type of action would be constitutionally different than the Federal assault weapon ban, but I'm sure people with more knowledge in this are could point to some resources ?? I don't want to re-invent the wheel here, and I've tried to stay out of most of the "swimming pools kill more people than guns" threads, but this piqued my curiosity, and I guess I didn't see why it was an useless conversation about an impossible task - not to say it ssn't, just that I don't know why, and was looking for some more conversation around that.
TheL8Elvis Philosopher Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 8,096	__________________ "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States...nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov Last edited by TheL8Elvis; 5th October 2017 at 09:45 AM.

5th October 2017, 10:10 AM	#269
Civet Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,598	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Not sure how this type of action would be constitutionally different than the Federal assault weapon ban, but I'm sure people with more knowledge in this are could point to some resources ?? With the Heller decision, I think we're dealing with a Supreme Court more deferential to the right to bear arms than we'd previously seen. I think they'd be inclined to interpret the "in common use" concept to protect semiautomatics. A piece of the key language would be this: Quote: We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Now I know that courts can change their views and that could well happen down the road but I don't think the current composition of the court is conducive to changing that position.
Civet Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,598

5th October 2017, 10:26 AM	#270
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Meritocracy as a form of government based on selecting leaders by ability (the secretary of the interior should be the most knowledgeable and effective citizen on interior matters). Broadly, it can be used to refer to anything where ability is a primary determinant. For example, people might claim pay in football is a meritocracy as justification for salaries. This is how I used it. Meritocracy is not might makes right and majoritarianism. Ah. Article 1. The right to aquire the means to quickly and conveniently commit mass murder for any reason which is none of anybody's business shall not be abridged. Article 2. The right to attempt to learn the motives of a person who amasses the means to commit mass murder shall not be abridged. Article 3. The taking of proactive measures, ostensibly or actually for the protection of the general public against the aquisition and potential use of weapons of mass destruction, is prohibited. Article 4. Article (3) is hereby amended to declare the following: proactive measures, the purpose of which is nobody's business, are allowed, provided that a demonstrable ability to successfully carry out such action exists. Article 5. Article (3) and article (4) are hereby repealed and transferred into the domain of Executive Privilege*.
Toontown Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,381	__________________ "I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

5th October 2017, 10:46 AM	#271
Ranb Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 9,122	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Bringing this from the vegas shooting thread because it seemed better suited here, and I would like to see some further discussion from people more knowledgeable than I... The link to the article; https://www.salon.com/2017/10/04/gun...ass-shootings/ My response to the article in the other thread; http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12021406 I think the author is uninformed and has a low opinion of his readers.

5th October 2017, 10:48 AM	#272
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 43,454	Originally Posted by Ranb Suck and useless are not the same thing. I also explained why I cared in post #179. Do you think that spraying lots of ammo with a sloppy grip on a rifle at long range is more or less effective than a firm steady hold while aiming each shot? Based on my experience, I'd go with aiming each shot. Less ammo, less time, more casualties. yea this guy was no Lee Harvey Oswald.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

5th October 2017, 10:53 AM	#273
Ranb Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 9,122	I would say he was no Charles Whitman.

5th October 2017, 10:54 AM	#274
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20,289	Republican-led bill on bump stocks expected to be introduced Thursday in House Originally Posted by CNN Florida Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo is planning to introduce legislation Thursday to ban the sale of bump fire stocks, an accessory that can allow semi-automatic firearms to rapidly increase their rate of firing rounds, similar to that of an automatic weapon, which are banned by federal law. "I think we are on the verge of a breakthrough when it comes to sensible gun policy," Curbelo told reporters Thursday, saying his office has been "flooded" with calls from other lawmakers asking about the bill. He said that the shooting in Las Vegas, where the shooter appeared to modify several weapons with bump stocks to fire rounds more quickly, demonstrated that these devices, are in his opinion at the "outer limits of what the law allows, in this case something that we strongly believe should be illegal." "This is such a blatant exploitation of the law, circumvention of the law, that the growing bipartisan consensus is a product of," Curbelo said about the shift after years of inaction by majority of congressional Republicans on gun legislation. Curbelo's comments follow those of House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who signaled openness Thursday to looking into bump fire stocks, and other Republicans have shown an openness to at least discussing a ban on the devices. In the wake of the Vegas shooting, Ryan told Hugh Hewitt in an interview for his MSNBC show that "clearly that's something we need to look into."... http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politi...rol/index.html
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

5th October 2017, 10:59 AM	#275
bobdroege7 Master Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,490	A well regulated militia... This part could be interpreted to mean the government has the authority to decide which kinds of arms a militia could bear. So the government could ban semi-automatic rifles and handguns.
	__________________ Un-american Jack-booted thug Graduate of a liberal arts college! Faster play faster faster play faster