Skip to main content

View Diary: Top Ten Reasons We Do Not Need Gun Control (40 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Progressives = "they' and not us? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber

    Are you sure you know what site you are on? Now I know why  kestrel9000 called you "a pure-dee rightwinger."

    It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America. - Molly Ivins

    by se portland on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 12:51:17 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's alright, even NoMoreNicks thinks some... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution

      It's alright, even NoMoreNicks thinks some Arms should be regulated and some Arms should even be banned.

    •  I'm not a teacher. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk

      If you have reading comprehension problems, I'll take some blame for that, I'm not a gifted writer. But to not be able to follow this:

      I am reading many editorials by progressives who claim to want to do just that, take firearms away. They are quite adamant
      When the "they" clearly means those progressives who are writing the editorials I speak of, well... that's not my fault. Not even a little.

      A "we" would be inappropriate there, because I'm not included in the subset who are writing such editorials.

      Is this what people do when they have no rational arguments to offer? If you don't agree with me, just say so. You don't even need to offer an explanation why. It would be simpler.

      •  Please provide your definition of arms (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        It will be pretty obvious that unless you are a complete psycho that you believe some arms should be regulated and even outright banned. The argument is a matter of degrees.

        •  "Arms"... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk

          In the context of the authors of the second amendment meant those weapons (and armor) that an individual soldier might carry into battle.

          They weren't cannons.

          In the modern world, this means all firearms meant to be operated by a single individual (no tripod-mounted heavy machine guns). No artillery, no ordinance.

          So yes, banning nuclear weapons is a good thing, but since they don't fall into the category of "arms", it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

          Are you aware of even which firearms are banned? You realize that machine guns are not in fact banned at all right? Rather, the law as it stands was drafted so that only rich people would be allowed to own them. Not unexpected, of course, it was 1986 and the Reaganoids were in power, but it's amazing how so many Democrats go along with that, happy that poor people aren't allowed the same thing as the rich.

          "Sawed-off" shotguns are also legal, and much cheaper than machine guns. The ATF even has this category they call "AOW" for "any other weapon" which are sort of these James-Bond-esque trick guns... ones hidden in canes or briefcases, or made to look like cellphones or cameras.

          •  So, things you would deem "arms" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, Ralphdog

            "In the modern world, this means all firearms meant to be operated by a single individual (no tripod-mounted heavy machine guns). No artillery, no ordinance."

            So, if the rounds go boom boom it cannot be an "arm". Okay. Most in the Arms Rights community think only the first part of your definition applies. If a dude can carry it and fire it, it is an "Arm".

            So you think fully automatic weapons should not be regulated?

            I assume things like rocket propelled grenades and anti-tank weapons are okay to ban since they contain ordinance by your definition?

            •  Not sure I understand this one... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk
              So, if the rounds go boom boom it cannot be an "arm". Okay. Most in the Arms Rights community think only the first part of your definition applies. If a dude can carry it and fire it, it is an "Arm".
              If they can lug a 110 pound shell meant to go into a cannon, this doesn't make the shell an arm. It's still artillery.

              If that's what you mean.

              Or, if you mean grenades or mortars (though the latter is really mean to be carried by a squad), I'm on the fence as to whether those are actually arms or not, in the traditional sense. If you want to ban privately-owned mortars, hey... maybe there's common ground between us.

              But Mrs. Feinstein isn't really upset about mortars, is she? I haven't read the entire bill (this recent version, anyway), but it seems a little more restrictive than just that.

              So you think fully automatic weapons should not be regulated?
              I would at least like to see the Hughes amendment repealed. This would allow new machine guns to be registered, and instead of costing $25,000 they'd cost something closer to $1500.

              I doubt many here agree with me on that. I do wonder if they think killing sprees would be worse were that so, and then I start to try to figure out what it is they're imagining.

              The best I can figure is that, generally speaking, the person who is afraid of machine guns becoming available is imagining some half-remembered Hollywood movie where Arnie never reloads and magically hits everything.

              Strictly speaking, there would be fewer deaths if the killers had automatics rather than firearms that fire more slowly. They'd waste their ammunition in the first few seconds, and have nothing left to kill with. That's counter-intuitive, apparently.

              I assume things like rocket propelled grenades and anti-tank weapons
              I think rather that they are ordinance, instead of merely containing it. If you don't mind me splitting hairs.
              •  So I guess that is my point.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber

                Even you agree there is a place for regulation, at some level, at some point along the path. The debate should be about where that takes place, not that you are Hitler if you think there should be any regulation whatsoever.

                By the way, The NRA definition of "gun" includes canons:-)

                GUN
                The British restrict the term in portable arms to shotguns. Here it is properly used for rifles, shotguns, handguns and airguns, as well as cannon.

                http://www.nraila.org/...

                •  I don't know that I do. (0+ / 0-)

                  Rather, I consider them completely separate concepts, only one of which is protected or needs to be protected.

                  The trouble is, I fear we're not having a conversation in the most profound sense. It could be one, it's difficult to tell when we're not speaking in person, no body language or anything.

                  But about half the time someone would say the words you're saying now, they're really just trying to come up with something to twist: "Hey, look, even this gun nut thinks some regulation is needed, he'll come around to seeing things our way eventually!". And when that happens, it just means we're more defensive and speak less.

                  Sometimes it even feels as if there is no reason to discuss things at all. A great many people refuse to see reason. They'll pipe up with the "oh, more republican talking points, do they give you guys scripts?" and the like. How do you think you'd react if someone was constantly encroaching on what you believed to be a fundamental human right and that rational discourse could never convince them to stop?

                  Even that very valid point is often twisted when mentioned. You know how it goes "haha, you're too scared to rebel, and the military would crush you!" and things like that, as if a person's reluctance to start killing people is somehow worthy of mockery.

                  I would like to end this comment with one last thought. Though you might consider even mentioning it ridiculous and irrelevant, it is very important to me that you hear this:

                  Disarming those who have harmed no one and who intend to harm no one is a very violent and despicable act and it is no less violent or justifiable should they choose to surrender.

              •  waste their ammunition in the first few seconds (0+ / 0-)

                They'd waste their ammunition in the first few seconds, and have nothing left to kill with. That's counter-intuitive, apparently
                That must be the reason why infantry uses only semi-automatic rifles.

                Interesting to compare when also comparing amount of return fire the shooter expects.

          •  "an individual soldier might carry into battle" (0+ / 0-)

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 02:58:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

              "Suitcase nukes".

              Except that they didn't really fit into suitcases, and if you tried to check them at the airport they'd be well over the weight limit.

              And then some. They are much heavier than the heaviest gear carried into battle by soldiers, let alone the weapons carried by soldiers.

              Furthermore, we can even talk about how such things might be used (which are pretty loathsome), they were never exactly fair or within the bounds of the laws of war. These were more along the lines of something a "dirty tricks" CIA would use.

              And I said "soldiers carry into battle" not "spooks sneak into a port of an uncooperative foreign government".

              •  So suitcase nukes are to heavy (0+ / 0-)

                for a soldiers to carry ?
                50-100lbs is to heavy ?

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                American suitcase nukes
                The lightest nuclear warhead ever acknowledged to have been manufactured by the U.S. is the W54, which was used in both the Davy Crockett 120 mm recoilless rifle–launched warhead, and the backpack-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition). The bare warhead package was an 11 in by 16 in (28 cm by 41 cm) cylinder that weighed 51 lbs (23 kg). It was, however, small enough to fit in a footlocker-sized container.
                http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/...
                Army leaders have criticized themselves for treating soldiers like Christmas trees, hanging new gear on them instead of stepping back to look at a whole system and the integration of its parts. The additional widgets weigh soldiers down.

                An infantryman already carries about 130 pounds of gear.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...
                Lockheed Martin originally developed the HULC to assist soldiers during combat. It could be used to help lift heavy loads while exerting minimal effort, with soldiers currently going into combat with up to 130 pounds of combat gear.

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 03:33:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Davy Crocket (0+ / 0-)

                  Was carried and supported by a squad of men.

                  This is another case of you trying to carry a piece of the weapon and claim it's an "arm".

                  For what, so you can twist my words and fallaciously say that I want people to own nukes?

                  •  "Another case" ? (0+ / 0-)

                    What was the others ?

                    I was just pointing out that a soldier could in fact carry a nuke into battle . You made some black and white statements that turned out to be "not so much".

                     "Arms"...
                    In the context of the authors of the second amendment meant those weapons (and armor) that an individual soldier might carry into battle.
                    A nuclear explosive device isn't an arm. It never was an arm.
                    If a nuke can be carried by a soldier and can be used by that soldier , is it an "arm" by your definition ?  
                    The Davy Crocket
                    Was carried and supported by a squad of men.
                    There has been some progress made in the last few decades , things have gotten smaller , lighter and computerized . So ...

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    The Center for Defense Information (CDI) claims that a detailed training replica—with dummy explosives and no fissionable material—was routinely concealed inside a briefcase and hand-carried on domestic airline flights in the early 1980s

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 03:59:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Let's see. (0+ / 0-)

                      1. Squad-portable nuclear weapon.
                      2. A mention of "130 pounds" when there are no nukes in the world this light.
                      3. Some sort of theoretical robotic vehicle or powered-armor suit. Why not talk about Mac trucks, and try to claim anything they haul around is "carried by a soldier"?

                      "Carry into battle" does not mean that you find the world's strongest weight-lifter, have him pick up a 500 pound nuclear weapon for 10 seconds, and then claim that because he picked it up, soldiers "can carry those into battle".

                      And I really don't understand the point of trying to twist this. Are you hoping to smear me? Or do you believe that the original amendment, as written, was worded poorly? That might even be the case... but "worded poorly" doesn't mean that it's then invalid or carries no legal weight.

                      •  You have lost track ? (0+ / 0-)

                        1) Person portable . I've shown that they have been 50-100 lbs .
                        2) Well yes there have been nukes that light .
                        3) I didn't suggest the use of any such thing , I quoted "130" lbs .
                        4) No need for "the world's strongest weight-lifter" , its already been shown that a soldier can carry a nuke , 50-100lbs on his or her back .
                        5)

                        And I really don't understand the point of trying to twist this.
                        I'm not twisting anything , I'm pointing out facts that refute your claims .
                        You on the other hand are resisting acknowledging reality .
                        Or do you believe that the original amendment, as written, was worded poorly?
                        Where did I say anything about the amendment ?

                        I think you have lost track of who is who .
                        Please go back and read the names of the people posting .
                        Perhaps that will help you get a handle on whats going on .

                        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                        by indycam on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:24:01 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  You went on to say (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        "why would anyone in their right mind trust another progressive who says"

        I am a trusted user. I can see all of you HRed comments from the past. The anti-gay comments, your anti-healthcare comments, your pro life comments, your anti -AGW comments. Need I go on?

        While you are in our living room, you could a least treat us with some respect, I would hope.

        It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America. - Molly Ivins

        by se portland on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:29:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Like I said, I'm not a great writer. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk

          The "another progressive" in that statement refers to one who isn't calling for all firearms to be banned.

          Why would anyone trust that particular one? He's making a promise he can't keep, because he doesn't speak for the rest. No consensus, no leader.

          Would you negotiate with someone who was making promises of X, when everyone standing behind him with proverbial pitchforks was screaming "No X for you ever!" ?

          I wouldn't have any trust in such a situation that the spokesman could deliver on the promises.

          So whether indeed it is true that registration doesn't make confiscation inevitable, those you're trying to convince should not believe you if they have a brain in their head.

          •  Except common sense and reality (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mathazar, Glen The Plumber

            We have registered hundreds of things with the government for decades. None of it has led to mass confiscations. There is zero evidence that registration of a product leads to confiscation. It does not happen and we have lots, and lots, and lots of evidence in our reality based world.

            •  It's not that simple. (0+ / 0-)

              Every historical example of gun registration has led to that. And we're not just talking the Stalins and Pol Pots either. Australia did this. Britain did this.

              Even if you could find counter-examples, those are hardly persuasive given the prevalence of the rest.

              Perhaps it would be possible to convince reasonable gun owners that registration doesn't equal confiscation despite all this, but only if progressives (collectively) really meant it. It does not seem that this is the case.

              Maybe you are afraid that if you were honest, that honesty could be used against you strategically. That happens enough in politics. But were that the case, am I led to believe that all progressives secretly wish for firearms to be banned, and just never speak of it, nudging those next to them that are too dumb to be quiet? That certainly doesn't seem to describe reality very well.

              But the alternative is just as confusing. If that is not the case, does it mean that the progressives who want registration-without-confiscation would intercede and stop a future confiscation effort? That seems almost... silly. It also seems absurd that they might work to stop a confiscation effort before it got started, since the only sentiment I've ever heard expressed here or elsewhere is "gun control loses elections". Eventually the pendulum will swing so far that you'll have the power and won't have to worry about losing an election or two.

              So please don't appeal to "common sense". Make a joke if you like that I have none, but it's a weak opener.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site