Guns or not Guns

[HeyYou]

"assault weapons" are used in less than one percent of gun crime. The brady bill, banning weapons with specific features, (high capacity magazine, folding stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor) came into being after Ronald Reagan was shot by a guy with a .22 caliber REVOLVER. Talk about target exactly the wrong audience...... It was a knee jerk reaction to one crazy man. Stupidity at it's finest. (most of the brady bill has since expired.)

 

You see, technically, assault weapons defines weapons that have (at least in Australia):

 

1. A pistol grip and more than 10 rounds, or:

2. A non-manual-cycling firearm.

 

Using this consensus, I'm pretty sure it covers more than 1% of gun crime in America. Also, your analysis is a bit off.......and that analysis didn't even include automatic weapons.

 

Of course, Brady is a definite example of forceful empathy: there is no doubt, he only did all those things AFTER he was shot, not before. It's akin to opening someone's eyes to something to see it clearer. BUT, the Brady Bill did not outright ban anything, it just required background checks before purchasing weapons. It was not because the weapon was an assault weapon or whatever, but because Reagan's attacker was mentally defective. To this bill, I have no problems with that. Henceforth, knee-jerk it is, but not stupidity.

 

"Article XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power."

 

I'm very sure no-one is actually going to attack any of you, and even under such circumstances, ownership of firearms just further promotes the concept of anarchy. There's a reason why the police was formed: to eliminate this need.

 

I use the US 'definition', as that is where I live, and those are the laws I have to deal with. Using the Australian definition, my semi-auto .22 rifle, with a 7 round magazine would be considered an "assault rifle", because it is simply semi-auto...... Statistics I stated are accurate. (as far as statistics go......)

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Of course, Brady is a definite example of forceful empathy: there is no doubt, he only did all those things AFTER he was shot, not before. It's akin to opening someone's eyes to something to see it clearer. BUT, the Brady Bill did not outright ban anything, it just required background checks before purchasing weapons. It was not because the weapon was an assault weapon or whatever, but because Reagan's attacker was mentally defective. To this bill, I have no problems with that. Henceforth, knee-jerk it is, but not stupidity.

I'm very sure no-one is actually going to attack any of you, and even under such circumstances, ownership of firearms just further promotes the concept of anarchy. There's a reason why the police was formed: to eliminate this need.

The Brady bill was in the end voted unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1997, so that should probably be taken into account somewhere.

 

As for promoting anarchy in case of invasion, I will once again cite the past where even the mere thought of American guns stopped ideas of invasion:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II

[grannywils]

@Lukertin: "Sorry, but Thomas Jefferson is not a founding father, as he was in France the whole time the Constitution was being drafted, and ratified. He gets to claim authorship of the Declaration of Independence and provided some....."

 

Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, NOT a founding father? Pish Posh :ohmy:

[lukertin]

Sorry, but Thomas Jefferson is not a founding father

I bet a White Belt in Google-fu can prove your rather confusing assertion false in 7 seconds or less.http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/turned.gif How can you not consider Jefferson a Founding Father?....http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/teehee.gif

 

Here's what my 7seconds revealed:

One

 

Two

 

Three

 

and Four.

 

Seems like a founding father to me. I'm not one to just go with the consensus, but it does help at times to make distinctions.

 

You speak of Thomas Jefferson as a founding father in the context of the Constitution. Whether or not you classify him as a founding father is irrelevant because he has nothing to do with the Constitution, and bringing him up in that context is misleading. He had nothing to do with the Constitution, input no value into it, and to call upon him as some sort of grand arbiter or specter whose shadow looms over Constitutional interpretation is a red herring.

 

Taking my argument out of context and in a direction neither of us were heading toward is rather disingenuous as well.

Edited October 11, 2011 by lukertin

[dazzerfong]

"assault weapons" are used in less than one percent of gun crime. The brady bill, banning weapons with specific features, (high capacity magazine, folding stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor) came into being after Ronald Reagan was shot by a guy with a .22 caliber REVOLVER. Talk about target exactly the wrong audience...... It was a knee jerk reaction to one crazy man. Stupidity at it's finest. (most of the brady bill has since expired.)

 

You see, technically, assault weapons defines weapons that have (at least in Australia):

 

1. A pistol grip and more than 10 rounds, or:

2. A non-manual-cycling firearm.

 

Using this consensus, I'm pretty sure it covers more than 1% of gun crime in America. Also, your analysis is a bit off.......and that analysis didn't even include automatic weapons.

 

Of course, Brady is a definite example of forceful empathy: there is no doubt, he only did all those things AFTER he was shot, not before. It's akin to opening someone's eyes to something to see it clearer. BUT, the Brady Bill did not outright ban anything, it just required background checks before purchasing weapons. It was not because the weapon was an assault weapon or whatever, but because Reagan's attacker was mentally defective. To this bill, I have no problems with that. Henceforth, knee-jerk it is, but not stupidity.

 

"Article XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power."

 

I'm very sure no-one is actually going to attack any of you, and even under such circumstances, ownership of firearms just further promotes the concept of anarchy. There's a reason why the police was formed: to eliminate this need.

 

I use the US 'definition', as that is where I live, and those are the laws I have to deal with. Using the Australian definition, my semi-auto .22 rifle, with a 7 round magazine would be considered an "assault rifle", because it is simply semi-auto...... Statistics I stated are accurate. (as far as statistics go......)

 

 

Wrong: assault rifle != assault weapon. Also, if you live in the US, you should know that varying states have varying laws, thus creating doubt in your statement. I do know for a fact that California has near-identical classifications of assault weapons as Australia.

 

Also, you still have no stated where you gathered your statistics from.

 

Also, WoA, you did not also take into account logistics and the practicality of running down the USA during WWII: you are just basing your argument off one man's opinion. Also, it does not deter the fact away from my previous statement of anarchy. Finland has an extraordinarily high level of arms ownership (courtesy of Russian fear), and look what happened to them prior to WWII.

Edited October 11, 2011 by dazzerfong

[WizardOfAtlantis]

You speak of Thomas Jefferson as a founding father in the context of the Constitution. Whether or not you classify him as a founding father is irrelevant because he has nothing to do with the Constitution, and bringing him up in that context is misleading. He had nothing to do with the Constitution, input no value into it, and to call upon him as some sort of grand arbiter or specter whose shadow looms over Constitutional interpretation is a red herring.

 

Taking my argument out of context and in a direction neither of us were heading toward is rather disingenuous as well.

Who's taking your argument out of context? You said clearly "No, Thomas Jefferson is not a founding father" etc etc (does it mean anything that you didn't capitalize Founding Fathers, too, or is it mere happenstance? Does that show a general disregard for the subject or merely a lack of care? I would suspect someone who flippantly uses the word "disingenuous" to know that Founding Fathers is capitalized, and to know what the term means, which I'm starting to think that you don't).

 

 

I speak of Thomas Jefferson as a Founding Father, like the rest of the world. For you to take that man, who did so much in the shaping of the United States of America, and disregard him as a Founding Father simply because for a short period of time he wasn't physically present, is mindbogglingly anal-retentive. You have clearly set up your own set of criteria for who is and who is not a Founding Father and hat's okay for you, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the way the rest of the world looks at this subject.

 

Acting this way, you simply disregard everything else he ever did, as well as the vast majority of public opinion that speaks contrarily to the line you have drawn for yourself. You are, in fact, the first person I've ever heard that would exclude Thomas Jefferson from the group of Founding Fathers. I find it an almost...heretical...notion.

 

I gave the quote because I had it handy and it's a good quote, period, that reflects some of the ideas of the times by one of the men who shaped them. You see, I like to make connections and widen the picture. You seem instead to be a person that likes to draw lines between this and that, and then discuss the merits lines that you've drawn. Now, that's all fine and dandy as distinctions are important, but I will call you out when you come up with something like "TJ is not a founding father" because that's just _____ based on one of the lines that you personally have drawn and doesn't reflect at all how US history is taught and recognized by the vast majority of its teachers and proponents.

 

I do understand the lines you're drawing and I see your point (beyond the TJ /= Founding Father thing which is, let's be honest, nonsense) but I prefer to be less disambiguous when trying to feel the spirit of the times. Sympathy involves unification, not division, and treating Thomas Jefferson as some kind of independent rogue that is so vastly different from his colleagues is rather confused.

 

You think he had nothing to do with this argument because he wasn't there when it was signed? Okay, you think that way.

 

This is from the Library of Congress:

"Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic."

 

So much for "he had nothing to do with it", huh?

[HeyYou]

"assault weapons" are used in less than one percent of gun crime. The brady bill, banning weapons with specific features, (high capacity magazine, folding stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor) came into being after Ronald Reagan was shot by a guy with a .22 caliber REVOLVER. Talk about target exactly the wrong audience...... It was a knee jerk reaction to one crazy man. Stupidity at it's finest. (most of the brady bill has since expired.)

 

You see, technically, assault weapons defines weapons that have (at least in Australia):

 

1. A pistol grip and more than 10 rounds, or:

2. A non-manual-cycling firearm.

 

Using this consensus, I'm pretty sure it covers more than 1% of gun crime in America. Also, your analysis is a bit off.......and that analysis didn't even include automatic weapons.

 

Of course, Brady is a definite example of forceful empathy: there is no doubt, he only did all those things AFTER he was shot, not before. It's akin to opening someone's eyes to something to see it clearer. BUT, the Brady Bill did not outright ban anything, it just required background checks before purchasing weapons. It was not because the weapon was an assault weapon or whatever, but because Reagan's attacker was mentally defective. To this bill, I have no problems with that. Henceforth, knee-jerk it is, but not stupidity.

 

"Article XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power."

 

I'm very sure no-one is actually going to attack any of you, and even under such circumstances, ownership of firearms just further promotes the concept of anarchy. There's a reason why the police was formed: to eliminate this need.

 

I use the US 'definition', as that is where I live, and those are the laws I have to deal with. Using the Australian definition, my semi-auto .22 rifle, with a 7 round magazine would be considered an "assault rifle", because it is simply semi-auto...... Statistics I stated are accurate. (as far as statistics go......)

 

 

Wrong: assault rifle != assault weapon. Also, if you live in the US, you should know that varying states have varying laws, thus creating doubt in your statement. I do know for a fact that California has near-identical classifications of assault weapons as Australia.

 

Also, you still have no stated where you gathered your statistics from.

 

Also, WoA, you did not also take into account logistics and the practicality of running down the USA during WWII: you are just basing your argument off one man's opinion. Also, it does not deter the fact away from my previous statement of anarchy. Finland has an extraordinarily high level of arms ownership (courtesy of Russian fear), and look what happened to them prior to WWII.

 

Have a look Here. This is one of many sites that will tell you basically the same thing. You are also mincing definitions. I am using the "Legal" definition here. (as that is most pertinent) It's isn't exactly easy for the average Joe to possess a selective fire weapon. (a "real" assault rifle)

 

Using California as an example doesn't work very well either. They are notoriously more strict than ANY other state in the union. As for your last paragraph, I have no idea what point you are trying to make there.

[marharth]

As for your last paragraph, I have no idea what point you are trying to make there.

Pretty sure he was referring to the quote by Isoroku Yamamoto.

[Aurielius]

"Also, WoA, you did not also take into account logistics and the practicality of running down the USA during WWII: you are just basing your argument off one man's opinion. Also, it does not deter the fact away from my previous statement of anarchy. Finland has an extraordinarily high level of arms ownership (courtesy of Russian fear), and look what happened to them prior to WWII."

 

I think that the opinion of the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack might have some validity, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. He also opposed war against the United States partly because of his studies at Harvard University (1919–1921) and his two postings as a naval attaché in Washington, D.C

Comparing the continental US to Finland lacks one key component, the depth of field that is available to retreat, a tactical concept that the USSR used successfully versus Operation Barbarossa in 1941. An armed civilian population along one's line of supply which must stretch 1500 miles to just reach the Mississippi is a sufficient disincentive for invasion.

[dazzerfong]

@ HeyYou:

 

YOU are the one who is mincing definitions: assault weapons do not represent assault rifles. Assault rifles fall under assault weapons, kind of like how a square is a type of a rectangle. And of course it's not easy for an 'average Joe' to get an assault weapon (well, quite easy in certain states), but there is still the option to own one.

 

Back to the militia question and why civilians need arms, if that's the case, everyone should have firearms then, or even issued one (at least limited to fight-worthy adults). If not, it contradicts the militia's goal. Just noting.