So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?

[cannabineer]

I must be extemely lucky as I have yet in my 60 years to see anyone from the government approaching me with their automatic and attempting to "take my stuff".

With forfeiture "law" what it is, it isn't beyond conception though. cn

 

[canndo]

How is that of consequence? I firmly believe that the underlying rationale of the 2nd Amendment was to maintain a balance of power between government and populace, specifically a balance unfavoring government.
Now we have semi- and full-auto weapons.
If you follow the logic, they should not be restricted from the general populace.
That logic does eventually lead to absurdity. Nukes are also now an technology in hand, and there is no way a nuke can be used to correct a social imbalance. they are hopeless tools for revolution. I would add strategic bombers to that list of useless area weapons.
But drawing the line within the domain of "dumb projectile weapons", up to and including anything that doesn't lob an explosive projectile, seems arbitrary and strict to me ... and worse, it plays into the hands of the keepers of the ratchet that seems to operate where civil liberties are concerned. It only goes one way: tighter. cn

Yet your limits are just as arbitrary. And that balance is not maintained. A single armed and armored hellicopter upsets that balance rather quickly, or should we all be trained to fly as well?

 

[Dr Kynes]

If that is the case, then we should all have access to fully automatic weapons. I think that everyone believes that firearms simply descend from heaven and that gun laws interceed only at the point of purchase. Gun manufacturers are not blameless in all of this and were there to be laws against semi-automatic weapons they might very well be executed at the level of the producer.

Now what ever the true cause and nature of this last shooting I will reverse my last forecast - that nothing would happen. Now it is likely that something will happen, that the scary looking guns will be made illegal. Now if the only distinguishing thing about these "assualt weapons" is that they look scary, then why are so many responsible gun owners so upset? If it is just a matter of how a gun looks, then who among them really cares that they will be made illegal. Certainly it can't be because they actually want results, as they only seem to lament the inefectivness of our current gun laws when something like this falls into their laps or bites them in the butt.

attempts to regulate the makers of arms out of existence are doomed to the same failure as attempts to tax and license printers into submission in the 1800's. the supreme court has already ruled that the exercise of an enumerate right cannot be legislated or regulated away (which liberals demand be applied to every amendment except the second) and even abortion which is mentioned nowhere in the constitution and WAS illegal for a very very long time before roe v wade is treated as sacred while the second amendment is viewed as a typo.

we SHOULD be allowed to own and manufacture such arms as wee deem necessary, and carry them about on our persons, either concealed or openly at our own discretion.

that was the law the constitution and the custom for nearly 150 years before the demonization of personal responsibility and the implication that any who have a weapon (even a pocket knife) must be up to no good.

 

[canndo]

So, you don't advocate outlawing semi auto weapons? I am confused.

Full auto weapons were completely legal not very many years ago.

Not so long ago is not now. Not so long ago pretty much the only mass shootings were criminals shooting criminals if I believe my limited understanding of the prohibition era. We may have short memories for such things but I rather doubt that there were many mass shootings of kindergardeners back when fully automatic weapons were legal and I suspect if there were, they would have been made illegal rather more rapidly.

I ASKED a question, now I did it for more than one reason and if you read all of my posts then you would realize that I also asked in order to see and demonstrate the emotional content of the anwers. No one mounts the sort of rabid defense of their "right" over any other "tool". I suggested we limit one portion of one sort of "tool" and we see page after page of disjointed, logicless, factless, baseless, pointless howl.



Why?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yet your limits are just as arbitrary. And that balance is not maintained. A single armed and armored hellicopter upsets that balance rather quickly, or should we all be trained to fly as well?

a helicopter is no match for a .50 bmg, or even a .35 whelen loaded with a monolithic solid, targeting the engine turbines.

or do you propose that the mere possession of helicopters is a deterrent to violence? cuz it hasnt done shit to help the local PD, and the afghans knocked down a few with shitty russian made RPG's i figure i could make something at least as good if need be.

 

[canndo]

a helicopter is no match for a .50 bmg, or even a .35 whelen loaded with a monolithic solid, targeting the engine turbines.

or do you propose that the mere possession of helicopters is a deterrent to violence? cuz it hasnt done shit to help the local PD, and the afghans knocked down a few with shitty russian made RPG's i figure i could make something at least as good if need be.

I propose that armored military gun ships with hellfire missiles and rotary electric machine guns are more than a match the bubba brigade and that the notion that the founders intended forever after for the common citizen to be matched to their military is a bit... rough.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Not so long ago is not now. Not so long ago pretty much the only mass shootings were criminals shooting criminals if I believe my limited understanding of the prohibition era. We may have short memories for such things but I rather doubt that there were many mass shootings of kindergardeners back when fully automatic weapons were legal and I suspect if there were, they would have been made illegal rather more rapidly.

I ASKED a question, now I did it for more than one reason and if you read all of my posts then you would realize that I also asked in order to see and demonstrate the emotional content of the anwers. No one mounts the sort of rabid defense of their "right" over any other "tool". I suggested we limit one portion of one sort of "tool" and we see page after page of disjointed, logicless, factless, baseless, pointless howl.



Why?

so now it's all just theoretical. youre just trying to figure out why this one class of objects is considered so special and so deserving of protection, well what if i proposed banning newspapers, or tv news networks,, or internet sites with opinions i find objectionable,, or abortion, or birth control, or public gatherings, or books by al gore, well then we would see you screaming and demanding that i be tarred and feathered.

calling arms "tools" is as disingenuous as calling newspapers simply printed paper. both have far more importance than the sum of their materials. they are symbolic. and you know quite well why.

 

[cannabineer]

Yet your limits are just as arbitrary. And that balance is not maintained. A single armed and armored hellicopter upsets that balance rather quickly, or should we all be trained to fly as well?

In a war, that helicopter will have a safe base. In a civil war, less so. If it ever really comes to outright civil conflict, the choppers and tanks etc. will score dazzling successes initially, then eventually suffer the same sort of attrition they did in every third-world gravel pit in which our military efforts have suddenly become tedious.

It would be ultimate irony if the heat-seeker I train on that rogue chopper were Russian in origin.

I am engaging in a flight of unrestrained fancy here. But it is to make a point. Even with all its might, no military is impervious to sustained popular resistance unless/until it pulls out the really big guns.
But an incremental removal of civilian weapons rights and privileges (I will be honest enough to say that every right is actually a privilege as long as central gov't is the sole arbiter) is something I can see being pulled off. At that point, the threat of civil war is largely removed. I can imagine the true bureaucrats rejoicing at the securing of their fiefs. It won't be as crude and cheap as Hitler's disarmament by fiat, but it will have the same effect. We shouldn't pretend it can never happen here. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

I propose that armored military gun ships with hellfire missiles and rotary electric machine guns are more than a match the bubba brigade and that the notion that the founders intended forever after for the common citizen to be matched to their military is a bit... rough.

no, you propose we submit to our better and accept their dictates without complaint.
helicopters and taanks and all the tools of the modern armed forces are JUST JUNK if they cannot get them off the ground, or they are doused with gasoline or blown up with improvised munitions.

our matchless and omnipotent military is having a pretty hard time dealing with the angry goatherders and pissed of mujahadeen in sandland, even with all their wonderful toys. when they turn to america's people they armed forces will have enough trouble with mutiny,, desertion and refusal to fire on their own people, even before the saboteurs and militant "Bubbas" as you so delight in saying, start their campaign of resistance.

those ignorant goatherds in sandland aint got shit on mountain men,, swamp dwellers, rural rednecks and hillbillies when they got their dander up. one more go round like waco and youll see plenty of insurrection, and theres gonna be tim mcveighs around every corner.

or did the mighty government prevent him from doing his sabotage too?

 

[desert dude]

Not so long ago is not now. Not so long ago pretty much the only mass shootings were criminals shooting criminals if I believe my limited understanding of the prohibition era. We may have short memories for such things but I rather doubt that there were many mass shootings of kindergardeners back when fully automatic weapons were legal and I suspect if there were, they would have been made illegal rather more rapidly.

I ASKED a question, now I did it for more than one reason and if you read all of my posts then you would realize that I also asked in order to see and demonstrate the emotional content of the anwers. No one mounts the sort of rabid defense of their "right" over any other "tool". I suggested we limit one portion of one sort of "tool" and we see page after page of disjointed, logicless, factless, baseless, pointless howl.


Why?

I like Kynes' answer better but here is another take on it: Show me another "tool" that is so important as to merit a constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting federal, state and local governments from infringing on its ownership and use?

By the way, the federal government has no right to ban hammers or saws, either. See the tenth amendment for this one.

 

[Mindmelted]

My understanding is that the vast majority of these shooters used semi-automatics. They did not use revolvers or hunting weapons. If this is the case, wouldn't the numbers of casualties go down if they were forced to reload after 6 shots?

Most hunting rifles are semi-automatic.

 

[cannabineer]

Most hunting rifles are semi-automatic.

Where? Most hunting guns I've seen are bolt-actions. cn

 

[canndo]

no, you propose we submit to our better and accept their dictates without complaint.

Nope, I propose that we accept the fact that our last line of defense is not what it is cracked up to be and find another one before we ever wind up having to use it.

 

[canndo]

attempts to regulate the makers of arms out of existence are doomed to the same failure as attempts to tax and license printers into submission in the 1800's. the supreme court has already ruled that the exercise of an enumerate right cannot be legislated or regulated away (which liberals demand be applied to every amendment except the second) and even abortion which is mentioned nowhere in the constitution and WAS illegal for a very very long time before roe v wade is treated as sacred while the second amendment is viewed as a typo.

we SHOULD be allowed to own and manufacture such arms as wee deem necessary, and carry them about on our persons, either concealed or openly at our own discretion.

that was the law the constitution and the custom for nearly 150 years before the demonization of personal responsibility and the implication that any who have a weapon (even a pocket knife) must be up to no good.

You are still operating out of an all or nothing mindset. My point was and is firstly that folks think that all laws pertain only to purchase. Because of that they believe that "only criminals will have 'semi-automatic weapons'". My point is that should they become illegal, manufactures could easily be ordered either to stop manufacturing them or stop selling them - this would not force the company out of existance any more than ordering a toy company to stop selling toys with lead paint on them would put them out of business.

Which brings up another point - why are gun makers exempt from liability in these cases? Why are they exempt from all liability? Drug firms are not, ladder manufacturers are not. Oh, I forgot, they are liable because their products do not work as advertised and intended but guns are.

 

[canndo]

so now it's all just theoretical. youre just trying to figure out why this one class of objects is considered so special and so deserving of protection, well what if i proposed banning newspapers, or tv news networks,, or internet sites with opinions i find objectionable,, or abortion, or birth control, or public gatherings, or books by al gore, well then we would see you screaming and demanding that i be tarred and feathered.

calling arms "tools" is as disingenuous as calling newspapers simply printed paper. both have far more importance than the sum of their materials. they are symbolic. and you know quite well why.

I see noone protecting the newspaper business, no one talking about their cold dead fingers and newsprint. Nor TV, nor news networks nor even Internet sites. We see constant attempts at encroachment on birth control and yet I see no mass of pill users complaining that even the smallest efforts at control might infringe on their rights.

It was not I that claimed they were "just tools", it is the gun folks touting that.

 

[cannabineer]

Nope, I propose that we accept the fact that our last line of defense is not what it is cracked up to be and find another one before we ever wind up having to use it.

I worry that an alternative last line of defense would be either safe or effective. And gun ownership is currently being attacked out of expressed safety concerns. I think it's inherent in any good defense that it is unsafe. Otherwise how else could it annoy a hardened position? cn

 

[canndo]

I worry that an alternative last line of defense would be either safe or effective. And gun ownership is currently being attacked out of expressed safety concerns. I think it's inherent in any good defense that it is unsafe. Otherwise how else could it annoy a hardened position? cn

It is harder to defend the first with the second than it is to defend the second with the first.

 

[cannabineer]

You are still operating out of an all or nothing mindset. My point was and is firstly that folks think that all laws pertain only to purchase. Because of that they believe that "only criminals will have 'semi-automatic weapons'". My point is that should they become illegal, manufactures could easily be ordered either to stop manufacturing them or stop selling them - this would not force the company out of existance any more than ordering a toy company to stop selling toys with lead paint on them would put them out of business.

Which brings up another point - why are gun makers exempt from liability in these cases? Why are they exempt from all liability? Drug firms are not, ladder manufacturers are not. Oh, I forgot, they are liable because their products do not work as advertised and intended but guns are.

Guns are unsafe by nature. If by liability, you mean the liability to do harm, guns could not survive our remarkably energetic product liability terrain. I think the folks arguing for liability want exactly that.

But ladder liability isn't about the inherent safety or unsafety of a ladder. Climb onto something narrow, and that is unsafe. But in the ladder case, if a rung should break or a footer develop excessively low traction, that would be a valid defect and liability. Analogously, i could see a gun manufacturer held liable for failure to discharge or unplanned discharge: manufacturing defects. Are there truly no examples of gunmakers held liable for that? cn

 

[kpmarine]

You are still operating out of an all or nothing mindset. My point was and is firstly that folks think that all laws pertain only to purchase. Because of that they believe that "only criminals will have 'semi-automatic weapons'". My point is that should they become illegal, manufactures could easily be ordered either to stop manufacturing them or stop selling them - this would not force the company out of existance any more than ordering a toy company to stop selling toys with lead paint on them would put them out of business.

Which brings up another point - why are gun makers exempt from liability in these cases? Why are they exempt from all liability? Drug firms are not, ladder manufacturers are not. Oh, I forgot, they are liable because their products do not work as advertised and intended but guns are.

Telling a gun maker not to sell guns is like telling a toy company not to make toys; telling a gun company to redesign the safety on it's weapons would be like your paint example. Why should a gun company be liable for anything other than manufacturing issues? Before you get a gun from a manufacturer, they have to transfer control of it to a Federally licensed dealer. He is the one who actually sees the purchaser and transfers the weapon to him. The firearms company is no longer responsible or the gun once it is in the hands of the dealer.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You are still operating out of an all or nothing mindset. My point was and is firstly that folks think that all laws pertain only to purchase. Because of that they believe that "only criminals will have 'semi-automatic weapons'". My point is that should they become illegal, manufactures could easily be ordered either to stop manufacturing them or stop selling them - this would not force the company out of existance any more than ordering a toy company to stop selling toys with lead paint on them would put them out of business.

Which brings up another point - why are gun makers exempt from liability in these cases? Why are they exempt from all liability? Drug firms are not, ladder manufacturers are not. Oh, I forgot, they are liable because their products do not work as advertised and intended but guns are.

gun makers are not liable for the actions others take with their products much like Ford didnt get sued when that dumbass in santa monica plowed through the farmer's market, and knife manufacturers dont get sued if somebody stabs somebody else, or cuts themselves.

if a firearm explodes when the user fires it, the manufacturer will get sued, and they HAVE faced liability lawsuits and recalls. what the left wants is to sue sam colt when a felon shoots a bank teller or convenience store clerk. can i sue the federal government if somebody hits me with a sock full of nickels? can i sue the louisville slugger company if somebody hits me with a baseball bat?

your argument is specious.

further, the regulation of firearms to the point where otherwise lawful arms were prohibited from being manufacturted as a backdoor ban is unconstitutional, they did the same thing with printers in the 1800's by trying to tax ink for unlicensed printers. it failed, that is settled law.
many gun makers have chosen the easy way out and simply knuckled under to government pressure rather than fight. when the bureaucrats take it a step too far youll see plenty of backlash.