The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
merphie said:
Of course it does.
But other than that, thank you for starting this thread. Believe it or not, we have never debated gun control before!!!
Of course it does.
But other than that, thank you for starting this thread. Believe it or not, we have never debated gun control before!!!
Earthborn said:
That makes more sense. So because the first says freedom of press then the first can only mean for the media to be free. You are ignoring the context that the framers were writing in. They didn't mean an organized force. You are using definitions from the modern times.
"The two categorical Imperatives of the Scond Amendment - that a militia of the body of the people is necessary to guarantee a free state and all of the poeple of the time (Not just when called for organized militia duty) have a right to keep arms - derive from the classical philisophical text concerning the experiences of ancient Greece and Rome and seventeenth-century England. Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, and the English Whigs provided an armed populace with the philosophical vindication to counter oppression which found expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. In this sense the people's right to have their own arms was based on the philosophical and political writings of the greatest intellectuals of the past two thousand years."
-Stephen Halbrook
The debate on that is nothing more than academic anyway. "The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986" says differently. So according to law the second amendment means personal firearm ownership of citizens.
Did you not read the first post at all? I've had to repeat myself two times now.
Re: Re: The Gun Debate
I know it's been on here a lot. I have seen and started them. I am getting the same factless opinions as before. Some skeptics forum. If you don't like it, don't read it.
I posted for peer review. I sent that to the media and my congressmen.
If Assault Weapon describes a class of gun, then what is the definition of an "Assault weapon"? Can you give me a clear definition?
The Central Scrutinizer said:Of course it does.
But other than that, thank you for starting this thread. Believe it or not, we have never debated gun control before!!!
I know it's been on here a lot. I have seen and started them. I am getting the same factless opinions as before. Some skeptics forum. If you don't like it, don't read it.
I posted for peer review. I sent that to the media and my congressmen.
If Assault Weapon describes a class of gun, then what is the definition of an "Assault weapon"? Can you give me a clear definition?
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Re: Re: Re: The Gun Debate
The definition of an "Assault Weapon" varies. It is defined by each individual using it.
merphie said:
The definition of an "Assault Weapon" varies. It is defined by each individual using it.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Gun Debate
Yes you could. Thus, that is the definition.
I know where you are going with this, but I am 10 steps ahead of you.
merphie said:
Yes you could. Thus, that is the definition.
I know where you are going with this, but I am 10 steps ahead of you.
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
If you cared about lying about things that really matter, such as why someone, who'll remain nameless, launched a disastrous war, then you'd think differently. Get some perspective.merphie said:
By the way, my advice to Kerry was not to make an issue out of gun control, which you said would be lying. But he doesn't heed my advice. So why do you say he's lying? Can you follow the thread of your own thought? Hmmm. Are you George Bush, posting here serrepticiously?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Gun Debate
But I said accurately. If I meant a steak knife and used the term "assault weapon" then you could think I was talking about a gun. This is not accurate.
If I say handgun, rifle, or shotgun you would know exactly what I was talking about.
When I mention "Assault Weapons", I am talking about reference to the media as they define it. When the media or Kerry talk about "assault weapons" they are speaking of rifles in general which to them includes automatic weapons used in the military. If they say that because the 1994 ban has expired assault weapons like the military uses [sic] will flood the streets. They are not accurately describing anything. The guns they reference were not in their original definition. So it is not accurate.
I know where you are going with this too. It doesn't make much difference. You are still not making an sense. It seems you are arguing that we should make up definitions as we go along. If that were true we would never convey any idea.
For Example
Bed fly munch
What did I just say? I made up definitions for those words to express my idea. Chances are you would never guess what I was talking about.
The Central Scrutinizer said:
But I said accurately. If I meant a steak knife and used the term "assault weapon" then you could think I was talking about a gun. This is not accurate.
If I say handgun, rifle, or shotgun you would know exactly what I was talking about.
When I mention "Assault Weapons", I am talking about reference to the media as they define it. When the media or Kerry talk about "assault weapons" they are speaking of rifles in general which to them includes automatic weapons used in the military. If they say that because the 1994 ban has expired assault weapons like the military uses [sic] will flood the streets. They are not accurately describing anything. The guns they reference were not in their original definition. So it is not accurate.
I know where you are going with this too. It doesn't make much difference. You are still not making an sense. It seems you are arguing that we should make up definitions as we go along. If that were true we would never convey any idea.
For Example
Bed fly munch
What did I just say? I made up definitions for those words to express my idea. Chances are you would never guess what I was talking about.
hgc said:
The war was justified when we went in. So because the CIA made an intelligence error everyone is lying? That's harsh. If he thought we were justified and later had the wrong evidence then he did nothing deceptive.
Kerry is lying. He says he believes in the second amendment and poses for hunting. He doesn't mention his position. If we look at his senate record we can tell differently. He has voted yes on every anti gun law to come through. Including extending the assault weapons ban. He missed most of his votes because he was out campaigning but somehow was in town for a vote on an anti-gun? No anti-gun there. He believes in gun owners' rights. Just like a certain senator from California and Sarah Brady. He even has a 100% rating by the Brady Campaign formally known as "Handgun Control, Inc"
I am following the idea logically. If he votes yes on Antigun and says he supports gun owners then he is lying.
Hee-hee Duh, Are you Kerry posting here? Hee-hee.
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Strawman alert. YOU said in the title of this thread that this is a debate. There is at least a debate on what the framers intended by that phrase - some say militia, some say all citizens should have access to any weapon that exists, e.g., particle beam weapons, photon torpedos, planetbusters, a big rock, bow-and-arrow, siege catapult, Howitzer, tank, ICBM, dirty bomb, smart bomb, flamethrower, ANYTHING. There is a lot of room in the middle, and that is why I say you are wrong and there IS a question about the meaning of the Second Amendment. There are potentially questions on ALL amendments at any given time.
Nice strawman about studying law, by the way.
What do you mean, "covered"? You said that "everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check." I gave several examples of how, in fact, everyone who purchases a firearm doesn't necessarily have to pass a check. Admit it, and move on.
Until you clean up your misleading and spun facts, why should I provide anything? Answer the question.
Jesus H Christ. ALL laws are restrictive of law-abiding citizens! Why can't kids vote? Why can't kids drink or buy cigarettes? Why should you have to be 16 to drive? Why can you be drafted at 18, but you have to wait until you are 21 to drink? Why can't you shoot fireworks off at the police station? Why do you have to register cars? Why can't you drive as fast as you want to? Why can't people use any sort of drug anywhere they want to? Why can't you masturbate in public buildings? Why do you have to be 21 to go in to see 18-year old strippers? Why do you have to pay taxes? Why can't you bury legitimately and naturally dead relatives in your backyard? Why can't you marry more than one person, or a person of the same sex, or multiple people of both sexes? Why can't you have sex with a corpse? Why can't you scream "Bush Sucks" at one of his rallies?
Your argument is SEVERELY flawed. If you make something legal, then if people do it they are law abiding by definition! Make necrophilia legal - then necrophiliacs are law-abiding citizens. That, my friend, is circular reasoning at it's finest. All gun-control laws do is make some guns illegal. If the citizens are law-abiding, they will then get rid of those guns. Right? They can still have dozens and dozens of other types of guns.
Strawman. Three times. First, he said "gun", not firearm. Second, he said "an x-ray machine", not a metal detector. Third, I said a non-metallic gun was theoretically possible - and it is. What's wrong with having a forward-looking law for once?
I mean, come on. Untwist your straw-filled "firearm through a magnetometer", and you will see that it's about a gun through an x-ray machine.
Strawmannery! It also says "freedom of speech", so you're wrong.
This definition only has to be as clear as that of "indecency", that of "obscenity" or that of "arms".
Bedbug bite
There is some bad info in this thread right now. I apologize if I have mistaken a quote from a source other than the board for a statement made by a board member.
Merphie said;
“The National Firearms Act of 1934 bans all automatic weapons. This was later repealed and replaced by The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).â€
This is wrong, the NFA act did not ban automatic weapons, it strictly controlled them. The NFA is still in effect.
“Today, everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check.â€
This only applies to unlicensed individuals who buy guns from licensed dealers. http://www.atf.gov/
Dorian Gray said;
"Today, everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check. "
Not at gun and knife shows. Not on the black market. People who steal or are given guns are not covered. Speaking of worthless.â€
Licensed dealers are not exempt from following the law at gun shows. Unlicensed individuals are never required by Federal law to do a background check. There is no such thing as a gunshow loophole.
"I just heard Kerry referring to "military assult weapons". I can only assume that he is lieing."
Nope. Until the ban lapsed, only the military and the police could buy those weapons.â€
I could by any assault weapon I wanted between 1994 and 2004. The ban pretty much just forbid manufacture and importation for civilian use.
Ed said;
“An "assault weapon" is a full auto military firearm. They have been and are illeagal.â€
Not illegal, strictly controlled by the NFA 1934. Many civilians own machineguns legally in the USA
We need to be more careful we are not spreading bad info ourselves.
Ranb
Merphie said;
“The National Firearms Act of 1934 bans all automatic weapons. This was later repealed and replaced by The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).â€
This is wrong, the NFA act did not ban automatic weapons, it strictly controlled them. The NFA is still in effect.
“Today, everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check.â€
This only applies to unlicensed individuals who buy guns from licensed dealers. http://www.atf.gov/
Dorian Gray said;
"Today, everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check. "
Not at gun and knife shows. Not on the black market. People who steal or are given guns are not covered. Speaking of worthless.â€
Licensed dealers are not exempt from following the law at gun shows. Unlicensed individuals are never required by Federal law to do a background check. There is no such thing as a gunshow loophole.
"I just heard Kerry referring to "military assult weapons". I can only assume that he is lieing."
Nope. Until the ban lapsed, only the military and the police could buy those weapons.â€
I could by any assault weapon I wanted between 1994 and 2004. The ban pretty much just forbid manufacture and importation for civilian use.
Ed said;
“An "assault weapon" is a full auto military firearm. They have been and are illeagal.â€
Not illegal, strictly controlled by the NFA 1934. Many civilians own machineguns legally in the USA
We need to be more careful we are not spreading bad info ourselves.
Ranb
Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Strawman. Three times. First, he said "gun", not firearm. Second, he said "an x-ray machine", not a metal detector. Third, I said a non-metallic gun was theoretically possible - and it is. What's wrong with having a forward-looking law for once?
I use gun and firearm interchangeably to refer to objects that propel a projectile thru the use of the expanding gasses from a chemical reaction.
I am waiting for a reference on how one constructs a non-metallic gun. Even the theory is cool.
I mean, come on. Untwist your straw-filled "firearm through a magnetometer", and you will see that it's about a gun through an x-ray machine.
OK, this is even more ridiculous. X-ray machine. And tell me how you propose to do that. If your answer is something like "put it in a metal box" the resulting security sh!tstorm should be about the same as would occur if the thing was in plain sight. I assumed that you meant, and correct me if I am wrong, that you could shield a gun and thus smuggle it someplace. If you meant simply make it look like an innocuous blob of metal then I agree. But you couldn't have meant that because it is a silly and shallow contention that doesn't provide anything except a mention on Fox's "stupid criminal of the Day" piece. What on earth did you mean?
Strawman. Three times. First, he said "gun", not firearm. Second, he said "an x-ray machine", not a metal detector. Third, I said a non-metallic gun was theoretically possible - and it is. What's wrong with having a forward-looking law for once?
I use gun and firearm interchangeably to refer to objects that propel a projectile thru the use of the expanding gasses from a chemical reaction.
I am waiting for a reference on how one constructs a non-metallic gun. Even the theory is cool.
I mean, come on. Untwist your straw-filled "firearm through a magnetometer", and you will see that it's about a gun through an x-ray machine.
OK, this is even more ridiculous. X-ray machine. And tell me how you propose to do that. If your answer is something like "put it in a metal box" the resulting security sh!tstorm should be about the same as would occur if the thing was in plain sight. I assumed that you meant, and correct me if I am wrong, that you could shield a gun and thus smuggle it someplace. If you meant simply make it look like an innocuous blob of metal then I agree. But you couldn't have meant that because it is a silly and shallow contention that doesn't provide anything except a mention on Fox's "stupid criminal of the Day" piece. What on earth did you mean?
Originally posted by Ranb
Ed said;
“An "assault weapon" is a full auto military firearm. They have been and are illeagal.â€
Not illegal, strictly controlled by the NFA 1934. Many civilians own machineguns legally in the USA
We need to be more careful we are not spreading bad info ourselves.
Ranb [/B]
I tend to use shorthand, for which I apologise.
You are quite correct that machine guns are own-able. I do not know if the specific models that the military uses are available for civilion use.
Now, here is a beauty. In Connecticut, to protect the masses, a law was passed that forbade selective fire weapons but was silent on full auto weapons. A classic result of polititions reacting to something that sounds good without any understanding.
For people not familiar with firearms laws, you must understand that far from any uniform set of laws a resident (and I refer here to Connecticut but I would bet that it is true pretty much anywhere) of CT must observe 1) local laws 2) state laws 3) federal laws. Ultimately, the most restrictive aspects of all of the laws apply. There are plenty of laws, the enforcement is rather suckey.
Ed said;
“An "assault weapon" is a full auto military firearm. They have been and are illeagal.â€
Not illegal, strictly controlled by the NFA 1934. Many civilians own machineguns legally in the USA
We need to be more careful we are not spreading bad info ourselves.
Ranb [/B]
I tend to use shorthand, for which I apologise.
You are quite correct that machine guns are own-able. I do not know if the specific models that the military uses are available for civilion use.
Now, here is a beauty. In Connecticut, to protect the masses, a law was passed that forbade selective fire weapons but was silent on full auto weapons. A classic result of polititions reacting to something that sounds good without any understanding.
For people not familiar with firearms laws, you must understand that far from any uniform set of laws a resident (and I refer here to Connecticut but I would bet that it is true pretty much anywhere) of CT must observe 1) local laws 2) state laws 3) federal laws. Ultimately, the most restrictive aspects of all of the laws apply. There are plenty of laws, the enforcement is rather suckey.
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
Gun control reminds me of abortion. The extreme ends are so into the the issue that its nearly impossoble to get them to some practicle middle ground.
Everyone is baggin on the assault ban as poorly written. WHOS FAULT IS THAT??? Both sides!!! Its not like the anti-gunners wrote up a crazy bill and POOF it was law. The thing got batted around back n forth. You them end up with a bastardized law that manages to get enough votes.
Everyone is baggin on the assault ban as poorly written. WHOS FAULT IS THAT??? Both sides!!! Its not like the anti-gunners wrote up a crazy bill and POOF it was law. The thing got batted around back n forth. You them end up with a bastardized law that manages to get enough votes.
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
merphie said:
Its a matter of degree.
Its not legistlation to ban ALL guns. One can be pro gun ownership and still be against certain type of firearms.
Its like being pro choice. That doesnt mean that you ahev to be OK with 3rd term abortions. If you sign soem anti-3rd term abortion bill does that make you anti-abortion??
Hamish
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 299
merphie said:
Not worthless as the law acts to discourage development of such weapons. Who's going to develop a non-metallic gun if no one is allowed to buy one? There are certainly ideas around for such a weapon but if there is no legal market for it, what company would spend the time and money actually undertaking such an extensive R&D project?
The "plastic gun" law was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to the introduction of Glock handguns, which have polymer parts. Not to make them easier to get through x-ray machines, but to make them lighter. A 2 lb hunk of metal gets heavy on your belt all day, and alot of cops (and my friends) carry them today because of that fact. Most gun banning politicians don't know jack about the things they attempt to legistlate anyway.
There is no handgun in existence without metal parts. Its an impossibility.
There is no handgun in existence without metal parts. Its an impossibility.