 |
Comments |
|
 | Friday, December 12, 2008 at 2:26:42 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
I too have noticed the proliferation of naïve generalizations of firearms (made especially by civilians).
The original M16A1 had three selector level functions: safe, semi, and automatic. The M16 they issue us now is the A2 which retains the safe and semi functions but replaces the automatic function with a three-round burst function. Will Congress include 3 bursters into their rights-eviscerating ban?
What about bullet diameter, magazine size, sniper rifles, or automatic pistols? "Assault rifles" may be evil and intimidating to the weapon-laymen at Capitol Hill, but do they realize the plethora of armaments that can be used to "off" people that can supplement each other in replacing "assault weapons."
One could shoot someone in the gut with an assault weapon like the M16 and chances are that the .223 round will pass right through them, giving the victim some chance to survive if it misses vitals. However, a .45 colt or, even worse, a .50 Desert Eagle Action Express round, to the gut will turn a person into an "aggregate," if you will. Will all these weapons be prohibited by law too?
Sniper rifles maybe semi-automatic or bolt-action, but they are never automatic. Will they be banned as well? The very furthest a good soldier or marine can accurately and consistently hit a target with an assault weapon like the M16 is around 500m. Yet a half-witt could hit a target at 600m+ using a 7.62 sniper rifle. Will Congress ban these weapons too?
Does Congress realize that very small weapons like the handheld, plastic toy-like glock-18 series can not only fire on full automatic but that they can use extended magazines of around 30 rounds?
And does Congress understand that a good welder can turn a semi-auto rifle into a full auto by messing with the trigger assembly? If Capitol Hill is going to ban "assault weapons," whats to stop them from banning a repertoire of other legitimate weapons?
If they do, they will simply endanger us all (especially those of us who live in the city) by giving criminals the best reward we could offer them: unarmed and easy victims. |
|
| Friday, December 12, 2008 at 8:30:26 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Fast Eddie
E-mail: rasimus(at)verizon.net
URL: http://thundertales.blogspot.com
The terminology in political debate is everything. Just as "semi-automatic" has been convoluted in the public mind, and "sniper rifle" is rapidly becoming a bolt action with scope, so also any other debate gets sound-bited down to favorable vs unfavorable labeling. Get the branding to stick and you win the battle/ballot.
Examples:
Pro-life vs Pro-death?
Pro-choice vs Pro-mandate?
It should be noted that a S&W revolver is actually a "semi-automatic" firearm, as it functions to fire one round per trigger squeeze and will do so as fast as you can pull the trigger--which can be quite fast as Ed McGivern used to demo. |
|
| Friday, December 12, 2008 at 8:47:08 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Ryan
The horrible gun labeling practices of the media are almost a running joke in the gun enthusiast movement. Anything that is black and has a lot of features is, of course, a scary assault weapon. Heck, I've seen modified pistols called assault weapons. Anything approaching automatic is called a "machine gun". Rifles aren't mentioned without the word "high-powered" in front of it like they are something special when they are simply hunting rifles.
I'm not even against a ban on certain weapons with no objective use in personal defense, Congress is not acting objectively. (Note: I have a wide definition for what is useful in personal defense.) |
|
| Friday, December 12, 2008 at 14:44:27 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com
This is one of those issues that I don't understand why other people find it so hard to understand.
It's not very difficult. Just picture an old revolver that needs to be cocked. Semi-automatic refers to the fact that the weapon only needs to be cocked once. Most of the time the ammo for semi-automatic weapons comes in clips, but some revolvers and shotguns are semi-automatic. There are also pistols that need to be cocked for every round.
I am not so sure I buy into the bogus epistemology claim since no one freaks out when they see airsoft rifles or paintball guns with similar characteristics. If they can say, "oh...it's for a game.", and differentiate between one being real and another being fake, isn't it the exact same type of distinction when it comes to automatic vs semi-automatic features?
Anyway, if there's such a fuss over "assault rifles", I can't wait to see the reaction if the AA12 Shotgun gets adopted/popularized by the U.S military. |
|
| Friday, December 12, 2008 at 16:11:09 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
A couple of things.... firearms that fire three round bursts are already considered "full auto" for purposes of deciding whether you can own one without paying the $200 transfer tax and/or being a class 3 dealer. (They fire more than one round per pull on the trigger.) The M-16/M-4 lookalikes you see being sold like hotcakes today are semiauto only.
Doug H. points out that people have no problem with semi-automatic functionality (in spite of the literal meaning of the definition, people generally consider only pistols with a slide and magazine to be semiautos, revolvers are excluded) when it is airsoft rifles and paintball guns, yet *apparently* freak out when a "real" firearm is like this. I believe it's not so much people trying to treat one differently from another, but the general public being *ignorant* of the fact that semi-auto "black guns" or "assault weapons" or more accurately "guns that look scary to Diane Feinstein" are NOT in fact fully automatic "machine guns." If it looks like an AK or an M16, they expect it will empty the magazine with one pull of the trigger.
Hollywood has done nothing to disabuse people of this notion. One example out of many: Terminator (the original) where the Terminator goes to a gun shop, and the owner hands him guns off the shelf--including an Uzi. Now that Uzi would *have* to have been a semi-automatic version. Legally it would have to have had a long barrel as well; it's hard to tell from the movie whether it did in the gun shop--you never actually get to see the barrel. When you see it in use though it is clearly full auto, short barrel. Obviously the Terminator did some surgery on it--but it is NOT obvious to the ignorant viewer of the movie, who comes away thinking that (at least back in the mid 80s) it was legal to buy a "machine gun" off the shelf. (For the pedantic: I suppose it's just barely possible that that gun shop was a class three dealer, but then it would have taken a LOT more paperwork and delay and background checks than the dealer stated, to transfer the Uzi. Watch the scene; it's obvious the Uzi is just another gun from the standpoint of the dealer.) |
|
| Friday, December 12, 2008 at 20:12:23 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Doug H
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com
Steve: If someone watching Terminator was convinced that it was legal to buy a machine gun off the shelf simply because of that film, they may also have reason to think that a robot from the future time-travelled to the past to kill some lady.
At what point do we start to credit or discredit what we see on screen?
Someone once said something about the "ritual of words" in the comment section of Noodlefood, certainly this phenomenon is similar. A ritual of visuals, if you may. Anyway, I understand you are just citing an example that tends to condition people who do not not operate from a clearer point-of-view.
Operating from that conditioned point-of-view, one will start linking up things when they shouldn't be. After all, it's not a filmmakers responsibility to consider such things like automatic weapon bans.
Gun fear and miseducation doesn't help. I am grateful to my father for taking me to gun ranges when I was a kid, and teaching me how to hold a rifle, safety concerns, and generally for demonstrating the power of the weapons so I could properly respect and handle them. I really pity the people who fear guns and have never even used them before. Guns are no more dangerous than the user. I believe that if more kids were introduced to them like my Dad had done with me, we wouldn't have so many people afraid of them and advocating all this silliness we see today. I mean, those people also had to learn to use knives to prepare meals right? It's fundamentally the same thing.
Oh, I wanted to mention: In my first post I had misread Paul's statement to mean that there was some sort of greater mental misintegration that caused other problems too. What he said was only concerning this particular issue of guns. Excuse me for not representing that properly. |
|
| Friday, December 12, 2008 at 20:31:17 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
No, Doug, it is *not* only because of that film, but because of *every* film Hollywood makes that touches on the issue. And if you live in a big city where guns are basically forbidden and were not raised as part of the gun culture, what you see on the screen is the *only* "knowledge" you have.
People continually underestimate the effect of the entertainment industry on the human ballast out there. It's their *only* window on the world. |
|
| Friday, December 12, 2008 at 23:20:04 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Col. Hogan
E-mail: Waynesdirtylab(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://www.colhogan.blogspot.com
Ryan writes, "I'm not even against a ban on certain weapons with no objective use in personal defense...."
It disturbs me greatly when an individual makes flawed statements such as this. If you grant government the right to "ban" an item (any item), a right that government does not possess, either Constitutionally or philosophically, you give the government the right to "ban" anything.
There is so much wrong with that thinking that a book could be written (and probably has been). Let's start with the fact that if something exists, why should one individual be legally able to get and own it, while another may not? Then: since criminals aren't concerned with the legalities of possessing certain weapons, why should honest individuals be legally unable to use similar weapons for their own defense? Also: How much power do we wish to grant to government, anyway? Since police are generally only around to draw the chalk lines, we certainly can't depend on them!
Ryan, it'd be far better to >>think<< before you become part of the crowd that advocates giving away the rights of the rest of us. |
|
| Saturday, December 13, 2008 at 0:13:28 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Ryan
Let's put it this way. Do you think that the government should be able to restrict nuclear weapons? That's an extreme example of course, but I'm only making the case that there are thing that the government should ban. The government, being a monopoly on the use of force, has an interest in maintaining that authority.
I suppose it's not clear in my previous post, but I'm only against firearm ownership if it goes beyond personal defense or reasonable hobbyist levels because I don't think one individual should be permitted to threaten governmental authority in a region. As someone against anarchy I don't believe that "defensive agencies" should be able to stockpile enough munitions to rival the military (at least not without oversight). It's no different with an individual's ownership of firearms.
I don't have a particular fear of a madman going on a rampage especially if other citizens are armed as well. However, I do have an interest in knowing that law and order is maintained. |
|
| Saturday, December 13, 2008 at 9:22:59 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com
Sure the government can restrict nuclear weapons. A nuke isn't a weapon of individual self-defense. It's a weapon of absolute mass offense. When could a single citizen ever have the need for a payload of thermos? What would be the consequences if you could just buy nukes like you could buy an expensive Ferrari? "Channel 6 news reporting. Well, it looks like Old Farmer Arty has misfired a nuke again! He was cleaning the shiny red button and then one fired off, making the former city of Chicago toasty warm for the 3rd time in two years. Luckily the last misfire wiped out half the city, so no one was injured this time. Sports is coming up next..."
The recognition of a personal restriction on nuclear weapons does not lead down a slippery slope of progressive weapons bans.
Since the right to self-defense is only applicable when force has been initiated upon you, indiscriminate deadly force weapons --- something like a land mine, claymores, nerve gas, and yes, nukes --- are not eligible under this right. An innocent person could be easily hurt by any of these. Also when legally owned weapons misfire, or is misused due to say, emotional state, only 1 or 2 people get injured due to its discriminatory nature. But what if a misfire were to happen with a nuke? Hundreds of thousands of people could die. D
With a semi-automatic weapon there is clearly the ability to discriminate. With nukes, no. I would tend to agree that this holds true for automatic weapons, yet I don't think that whether those are restricted or not makes much tangible difference in the realm of personal safety.
Why the a free government has the right to such non-discriminatory weapons when its individual citizens do not, is a question for another day. |
|
| Saturday, December 13, 2008 at 9:25:03 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com
Err, excuse the spelling mistakes in my previous post. |
|
| Saturday, December 13, 2008 at 9:57:58 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Fast Eddie
E-mail: thunder.rolled(at)gmail.com
URL: http://thundertales.blogspot.com
Gosh, Ryan, I've never seen a greater misinterpretation of the Second Amendment than what you wrote. Read it slowly to yourself. Did you find any mention whatsoever about hunting, personal defense, target shooting or collecting?
The purpose was clearly described in the Federalist Papers and reflected the recent experience of the Founders. The only purpose of the Second Amendment is to insure that the people always retain the right to resist an oppressive government. The people had taken their personal firearms to the field to oust King George's army and they should always have that right.
And, don't think the ability has lessened with modern military arms. We've seen an armed civilian populace defeat the most modern of militarys several time in the last fifty years--think of the Viet Cong, and the Mujahadeen for just a couple of prominent examples. |
|
| Saturday, December 13, 2008 at 17:28:22 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Col. Hogan
E-mail: Waynesdirtylab(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://www.colhogan.blogspot.com
I wasn't necessarily limiting my comments to weapons, but to anything at all---though I realize that you are.
Theoretically, anyone with enough intelligence and perseverance could build a nuclear weapon. Should we jail him if he does it? Then, should we jail him if he exhibits the ability to do it? Should we jail him if he seems like he might have the needed intelligence to be able to learn to do it?
The first justification I can imagine for private nuclear weapons ownership will happen as we seriously step off into space travel. Not only will space vehicles likely be powered by nuclear power, but future miners might use it for mining the asteroids.
Any and all of the tools and weapons we all >>wonder<< at what they can possibly be used for, will be found useful in some way, in our pursuit of progress and profit. Are we to ban anything that is used by criminals, in spite of the fact that it might be used for rational purposes?
There are no limits, my friend, except those we place upon ourselves. The power-mad beasties we more commonly refer to as bureaucrats should >>never<< be given any authority over our ability to progress. |
|
| Saturday, December 13, 2008 at 19:02:18 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Sajid
In response to #13:
You can argue all you want from human rights and future scenarios, but as of today I would be EXTREMELY uncomfortable if my neighbors had access to nuclear weapons. The reasons is if anybody was pissed at the world he would now have the power easily instill fear in those of us who value our freedom to think in a secure environment. Generally if a man was intelligent enough to make a nuke on his own he would be intelligent enough to know NOT to make it for personal use. The harm to society completely outweighs the benefit to any individual interested in making it. Since human rights cannot exist without a stable and secure society in the first place I think it is sophistic to argue the right to own nuclear weapons from the basis of human rights. In fact, even in the future of space travel, until and unless we develop adequate personal defenses against nuclear blasts (shields?) I would personally favor HEAVY regulation of nuclear weapons. |
|
| Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 0:22:12 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Col. Hogan
E-mail: Waynesdirtylab(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://www.colhogan.blogspot.com
Sajid,
Everyone always brings up nuclear weapons.
Bad news: Your neighbors do have nuclear weapons. We don't even know where they keep them. When I was growing up in North Dakota, they were building silos in which to place them, and there they remain to this day. They are also placed in many other parts of the country. probably not near Washington DC.
I'm speaking, of course, of our neighbors in the federal government.
Is anyone, after all we've been reading, seeing and hearing in the news, still of the opinion that all intelligence rests in, and radiates from Washington DC? People in that city control the nuclear weapons that are scattered all over the countryside. After the legislation that we've all heard proposed and passed in recent years, can you possibly trust >>those people<< to use that power wisely?
But the argument isn't about nuclear weapons. It's about man's right to keep, use and dispose of the fruits of his mind. One writer threw in the nuclear option just to distract us all from the point. Shame on him!
It's utter, malicious foolishness and grossly irrational to argue against the right of the individual to create and keep the fruits of his mind by throwing out the ludicrous example of nuclear weapons as a reason why this principle should be compromised. |
|
| Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 1:07:39 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Sajid
>>But the argument isn't about nuclear weapons. It's about man's right to keep, use and dispose of the fruits >>of his mind.
To Col. Hagan:
I agree with you on this point of course. However, living in a society inevitably creates certain compromises. Speed limits are imposed on public roads because it is impossible to precisely measure how good a certain driver is and what his probability of hitting someone is. Thus you driving at 90 mph maybe safer than me at 50 mph yet the law is the same for all. Is it fair? from a metaphysical perspective of course not. You are more capable but still being limited by my incompetence. But such is life as there is not really a better way. The same principle applies to weapons ownership. Consider four individuals--one is involved in the drug trade, another is a terrorist, a third has a genuine passion for weapons, a fourth is an inventor with interests in making better weapons for the protection of his fellow men. Say all of them are brilliant engineers and are fully capable of making their own automatic weapons, rocket propelled grenades etc. However, only two of them really have the right to use the product of their minds for their own purposes as the other two would be breaking the law and thus violating the very principles on which all human rights rest. Rules and regulations are made by our government to protect civilians from those kinds of people. Thus an argument for the ownership of dangerous weapons cannot rest solely on the principle that one has a right to the product of one's mind even though this argument is of course the best way to defend the right to own weapons. Some practical thinking is in order here and I am really happy to have our government having a complete monopoly over certain really powerful weapons. Yes I know these are the same dolts who have been mismanaging our economy among other things. But those dolts are all we have and right now I am in my apartment typing this reply and am feeling really really secure. Thus they must be doing something right. Given the rise in crime as an expression of angst and anger (Columbine, terrorism) I am glad that certain kinds of weapons are heavily regulated. Needless to say this is an open issue? Where should we draw the line? Paul's video tells us a little regarding what is wrong with gun laws today and I think this is the proper way to address gun control today. I believe in the right to bear arms but I do not believe gun ownership should be unregulated. For this issue, God, or philosophy is in the details. |
|
| Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 11:44:48 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Col. Hogan
E-mail: Waynesdirtylab(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://www.colhogan.blogspot.com
Sajid,
To continue our meandering course away from the right of property and ownership, I have to relate a personal anecdote that suggests the folly of trusting government with objects deemed "too dangerous for individual ownership."
We, many of us, are alive today from sheer good fortune. In 1962 I was a sailor aboard the USS Saratoga, an attack aircraft carrier. We were cruising in the Caribbean in the area surrounding Cuba. Our assignment, as I learned later, was to represent a show of force against USSR shipping nuclear missiles and building bases on the Cuban island. The ultimatum sent by an extremely inept President John F Kennedy brought us closer to a nuclear exchange than is comfortable to think about.
Kennedy's handling of the Cuban situation stands as perhaps the single most incompetently handled international situations in US history.
Thus, the trusting of government to manage those objects deemed "too dangerous for individual ownership" falls on deaf ears here. I don't believe anything is in better hands with government than in the stewardship of those individuals who fully understand the capabilities and the safe handling of them.
Recall that the very invention of nuclear weapons is a creature of government. It's my arguable contention that the use of nuclear power in this way might never have happened but for a trigger-happy government.
I could go into a long dissertation on the belligerence of US foreign policy over the past century or so, but neither you nor I have any desire to wade through all that. Suffice it to say that the US has been attacked once in that time (unless one counts 9/11), and that situation was aggravated (and maybe caused) by horribly, possibly criminally poor diplomacy as applied by the evil Roosevelt Administration to the government of Japan.
But, my contention remains that all of this is simply an argument over whether man has rights of ownership, use and disposal of the products of his mind. |
|
| Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 13:15:26 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Sajid
To #17:
Wow you really are a colonel!! Thanks very much for sharing your personal experiences. I must still say I prefer that the government have a monopoly over force. You do make a case for private ownership of weapons of mass destruction based on Kennedy's handling of the Cuban missile crisis. But we see intelligent people all the time who have a warped notion of the world. All it takes is for one of these intelligent and competent people to make a nuclear weapon and sort of "go crazy". In fact the Japanese death cult "Aum Shinrikyo" (of the Sarin gas in a Tokyo tunnel) have exploded a nuclear bomb in Australia (I read it in a book by Bill Bryson on Australia. You can google Shinrikyo nuclear weapon too). Does this make me more comfortable or less?
>>But, my contention remains that all of this is simply an argument over whether man has rights of ownership, >>use and disposal of the products of his mind.
I guess your contention is that men should have an ABSOLUTE right to the products of their mind. In the case of gun ownership I have to say I disagree. The industry should be regulated for the reason I stated previously--A secure society is necessary for any human rights to have any meaning in the first place. Private ownership of extremely powerful weapons means that I have to fear any man with access to those weapons who is not totally right in the head. At least our president is still subject to the "checks and balances" of our government and his power is limited. Sure for me personally I want live in a world where no unnecessary rules would stifle my creativity. Unfortunately that is not how the world is (at least the way I see it). |
|
| Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 6:20:55 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Billy Beck
E-mail: wjbiii(at)frontiernet.net
URL: http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
"No, Doug, it is *not* only because of that film, but because of *every* film Hollywood makes that touches on the issue."
Does anyone here remember "Top Gun"? All through that film, you'll see Tom Cruise in the cockpit rolling around the horizon, looking great for the cameras as his oxygen-mask hangs jauntily off his helmet and we get to enjoy all his manly features. The thing, of course, is that that *never* happens in real ACM ("air combat maneuvering"). Real tactical aviators realize that they're watching a cartoon, and they think it's all funny. What's not funny at all is that one has to sort of know something about the subject in order to get the joke.
If you know anything about firearms, then you realize that you almost never see anything real about them that comes out of Hollywood. Almost never. |
|
| Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 17:13:54 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Scott
E-mail: Scott7891(at)gmail.com
"I guess your contention is that men should have an ABSOLUTE right to the products of their mind. In the case of gun ownership I have to say I disagree. The industry should be regulated for the reason I stated previously--A secure society is necessary for any human rights to have any meaning in the first place. Private ownership of extremely powerful weapons means that I have to fear any man with access to those weapons who is not totally right in the head. At least our president is still subject to the "checks and balances" of our government and his power is limited. Sure for me personally I want live in a world where no unnecessary rules would stifle my creativity. Unfortunately that is not how the world is (at least the way I see it)."
I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Case in point-Switzerland.
In that country, every individual is issued in their house a SIG-550 or 552 assault rifle in 5.56 NATO, the current ammunition used by our military and many others worldwide. Yet how many cases do you see of people or criminals going in rampages with them causing vestiges of mayhem over there? They are even allowed to own flamethrowers without any regulations (http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=403286&highlight=Swiss) yet you do not read cases of people being burned alive by a lunatic. The last time I checked Switzerland had one of the lowest crime rates in Europe if not the world. Just because the weapons are available does not mean someone will automatically misuse them. Since terrorists and lunatics do not obey the law anyway why would a ban stop them from committing their heinous act? Just because a government bans something does not mean it goes away. Certain types of drugs are prohibited yet I can still get them. The Prohibition of the 1920's banned alcohol yet people were still able to get them. If there is a will there is a way. Being armed is a deterrent in its own right and makes individuals who wish to commit nefarious acts think twice before doing them. Besides the market in itself is a deterrent. Lets say that missiles, flamethrowers, etc. were not as regulated as they are now. A lot of rifles today are $1000+ dollars where only people with a passion for said items would purchase them. Missile launchers and their ordnance are more of a sophisticated material and build. I would assume they would costs 10's if not 100's of thousands of dollars. Do not even get me started with replenishing ammo which would be prohibitively expensive in its own right. In the end its all about the evil intent of the user not the tool so blame the individual not the tool. |
|
| Sunday, February 1, 2009 at 13:13:22 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Park Jennings
E-mail: ceasar911(at)yahoo.com
I have 2 cents to add here. I'm not sure that you can draw any meaningful distinction between a nuclear weapon and a large conventional weapon. Until you start talking about fallout effects, the only difference is the size of the explosion, which is just a matter of measurement, not fundamental differences. While I would agree that the government might have a legitimate role in regulating highly explosive materials (at some point, the nominal explosive force of a device will be so large such that any use will threaten other people's safety), this is no reason to ban them. Nuclear weapons can be used for constructive, legitimate purposes; for example, someone building a road through a mountain range might find it easier to demolish the mountain with a nuclear warhead than to tunnel through or build around it. Scott's example of nuclear power and nuclear propulsion is a good point too; what mechanism may the government morally have that will ensure that fusile or fissile materials that can be legitimately owned by a nuclear power plant will not then be used to make a nuclear bomb? |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
