Quotehttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?src=mv
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/01/09/us/09giffords-span/09giffords-span-articleLarge.jpg)
January 8, 2011
Congresswoman Giffords Shot in Tucson
By J. DAVID GOODMAN
Gabrielle Giffords, a congresswoman from Arizona, was shot in the head on Saturday at a public event held at a grocery store in Tucson, her spokesman, C. J. Karamargin, said. Others at the event, including members of her staff, were among the injured.
Her condition was unknown. She was taken to University Medical Center in Tucson, the trauma center for the area, about 10 miles away. Even though NPR and CNN reported that she had been killed, Darci Slater, a hospital spokeswoman, said that Ms. Giffords was in surgery.
CNN quoted a public information officer for the sheriff’s office as saying that 12 people had been injured in all and that the shooting had occurred around 10 a.m. local time.
Dr. Steven Rayle, a former emergency room doctor who now works in a hospice, said that he had witnessed the shootings. He said the congresswoman was standing behind a table outside the Safeway greeting passersby when the gunman approached her from behind, held a gun about a foot from her head and began firing.
. “He must have got off 20 rounds,†he said. Ms. Giffords slumped to the ground and staff members immediately rushed to her aid, Dr. Rayle said.
Dr. Rayle said he performed CPR on some of the victims. He said one of the victims was a young child and appeared to be in critical condition with a gunshot wound.
He said that one of the staffers tackled the gunman and that he and others helped detain the suspect. The doctor described the gunman as a white male in his mid-20s with short hair and “dressed in a shabby manner.â€
An employee at a nearby store told CNN that he heard a steady stream of gun fire that appeared sustained and “random.†Shortly after, emergency vehicles filled the parking lot around the grocery story and cordoned off the area.
The shooting occurred at a Safeway supermarket in northwest Tucson as Ms. Giffords hosted an event, called “Congress on Your Corner, to allow members of the 8th Congressional District to meet her individually. She has held several events since first taking office in January 2007. At one such event in 2009, a protester was removed by police when his pistol fell on the supermarket floor.
Last March, her Tucson office was vandalized a few hours after the House vote overhauling the nation’s health care system, the authorities said. Earlier events in Tucson, Oro Valley, Green Valley, Sierra Vista, and Douglas had attracted between 75 and 150 people, according to a statement announcing the event. This was her first event since her re-election to a third term in November.
Ms. Giffords, 40, was interviewed on Fox news on Friday to talk about a bill to cut to congressional salaries by 5 percent.
She married Cmdr. Mark E. Kelly, 46, a NASA astronaut and Navy pilot from New Jersey, in December 2007 at a wedding attended by Robert B. Reich, the former Labor secretary.
Marc Lacey contributed reporting from Tucson.
Fox News is reporting that she's responding to doctors now.
A 9 year old girl and a Federal Judge have been killed, as have at least 3 others.
The reports I have read says she is dead.
Quote from: Coolyfett on January 08, 2011, 09:31:59 PM
The reports I have read says she is dead.
Cooly, it appears you need to get a speedier internet connection. Every report since mid-afternoon has indicated she had surgery, is in recovery, and doctors are optimistic since she responded to instructions. I agree, sounds incredible given she was shot through the head, but that's what the doctors are reporting.
According to Arizona media reports, the Federal judge was passing by the outside table to enter the store to grocery shop and had nothing to do with the Congresswoman's event other than maybe to pause and pay his respects. The little girl tagged along with a neighbor who thought she might want to go since she was just elected to her school's student council. Just shows we should never take a moment of life for granted.
Here is the latest from CNN:Quote(CNN) -- A federal judge was killed and a congresswoman gravely wounded Saturday in a shooting outside of a Tucson, Arizona, grocery store, according to police and government officials.
In all, six people died and 12 were wounded in the shooting, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, according to Rick Kastigar, bureau chief for the Pima County Sheriff's Department.
President Barack Obama later said Chief Judge John Roll of the U.S. District Court for Arizona was among the dead.
Gabe Zimmerman, the director of community outreach in the congresswoman's Tuscon office, died in the attack, Giffords' press secretary C.J. Karamargin said, as did a 9-year-old girl, according to authorities.
The girl is one of four victims whose identity has not yet been released.
An Arizona law enforcement source and a federal law enforcement source identified the suspect as Jared Lee Loughner. Other law enforcement sources put his age at 22. U.S. Capitol Police said the suspect was in custody.
Police recovered a 9mm Glock Model 19 handgun, according to senior law enforcement sources. The weapon had a 30-round magazine, a federal law enforcement source briefed on the investigation said.
An Arizona law enforcement source told CNN that Loughner is not talking to investigators and has invoked his right against self-incrimination.
Dr. Peter Rhee of University Medical Center in Tucson, said Giffords, 40, had undergone surgery for a single gunshot to the head that passed through her brain. Giffords was among five patients listed in critical condition, Rhee said.
At least two victims with gunshot wounds were transported to another hospital, Northwest Medical Center, according to spokesman Richard Parker.
Kastigar declined to comment on a possible motive for the attack.
The attack occurred after 10 a.m. (noon ET) outside a Safeway grocery store where Giffords was holding a previously scheduled constituent meeting.
Giffords staffer Mark Kimble told CNN affiliate KGUN that the congresswoman did not have any security with her Saturday morning, which was not unusual for her.
"She wants to be as accessible to the people who elected her as possible," Kimble said.
Karamargin said he was not aware of any call for Giffords to heighten her security measures because of recent threats.
Tucson police Chief Roberto Villasenor said his department had secured the homes and offices of some unnamed federal officials as a "precautionary measure."
Although U.S. Capitol Police said there was no evidence of a broader threat involving federal officials, the agency said it had advised other members of Congress to take "reasonable and prudent precautions regarding their personal safety and security," the agency said in a statement.
Obama said he had directed FBI Director Robert Mueller to travel to Arizona to support the investigation. An FBI spokesman said the agency was sending agents to the scene,
Rhee, in a brief news conference at the hospital, said that Giffords had been moved to intensive care from surgery and said he was "very optimistic" about her recovery.
"I'm about as optimistic as it can get in this situation," he said.
He said the next 24 hours will be key for determining the extent of her recovery.
Giffords, a Democrat, was first elected in 2006. She has served as chairwoman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee and also holds seats on the House Science and Technology and Armed Services committees.
She won her third term in a closely contested race against a Tea Party-sponsored candidate and was one of three Democratic legislators who reported vandalism at their offices following the March vote on health care reform.
She is married to Navy Capt. Mark Kelly, a NASA astronaut who is scheduled to lead a space shuttle mission to the International Space Station.
Roll was a 1991 Bush appointee to the federal bench. The chief judge for the U.S. District Court for Arizona, he was originally from Pennsylvania.
Colleagues and admirers of Giffords and Roll reacted quickly to the shooting.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the attack was committed by a "wicked person who has no sense of justice or compassion."
"Whoever did this, whatever their reason, they are a disgrace to Arizona, this country and the human race, and they deserve and will receive the contempt of all decent people and the strongest punishment of the law," he said.
Obama called the attack an "unspeakable tragedy."
"We do not yet have all the answers," he said. What we do know is that such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society."
House Speaker John Boehner said he was "horrified" by the shooting.
"An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve," he said. "Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society."
Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts issued a statement decrying the shootings and the loss of Roll, whom he called a "wise jurist who selflessly served Arizona and the nation with great distinction."
"Chief Judge Roll's death is a somber reminder of the rule of law and the sacrifices of those who work to secure it," Roberts said.
Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, said an incident like this could have a chilling effect on the frequent weekend listening post sessions many members of Congress have with their constituents.
"It does give you pause," Pingree said.
CNN's Jessica Yellin, Susan Candiotti, Jeanne Meserve, Dana Bash and Nick Valencia contributed to this report.
Who knows what he was, but a nut seems to be sure
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shootings.suspect.social/index.html?hpt=T1
Well that's an unfair assumption. The NY Times is reporting the shooter was described by friends as "left of center" and "very liberal". On his personal web profiles his favorite reads included Karl Marx and Hitler.
It's pretty obvious from the rest of the reports that this wasn't motivated by political affiliation as much as it was by flat out lunacy... And your accusations seem to be fueled by the same.
It's more than just obsessive to use a violent act of senseless murder to push partisan politics... It's also tacky... And when you don't fact check... Ignorant.
So you read that he was know as a liberal but lumped him in with the tea party? :/
I think this nutcase got lost in political ideals from both sides and theories about financial collapse and the end of the world. Honestly I see strong similarities in your posts.
I have absolutely no affiliation with the Tea Party. You've been to more rallies than I.
Nice "I'm rubber and you're glue" tactics.
Not sure what you're getting at here.
I can definitely see how this poster motivating conservatives to get out and vote could cause a man described by friends as a liberal to assassinate a local gongress woman and a crowd of innocent bystanders.
I will not be held accountable for spelling, grammar or punctuation after midnight.
Guess not.
Why should you be the end all be all of distorted facts and misquotes? In a few short posts you accused both the shooter and myself of being tea party members.... Not because of facts... Because of currency theories about world currency that coincide with blather from Glenn Beck. It seems To me that you follow Beck more intently than the assassin.
The shooter was mentally unbalanced. It is improper to blame the left or the right political philosophies for his actions. Violence should be condemned in ALL of our countries political discourse. I am sure that we all agree on that point. Let's leave this what it is, a mentally unbalanced individuals crazy actions.
The article did not mention they were friends... Didnt mention the Tea Party either. Although I'm more inclined to believe someone that had physically met this individual in person. That's a fact.
Pompous starts with You...
Wow, little girl was born on 9-11-01. What irony in that. Violence then and now. How sad.QuoteChristina Taylor Greene
The 9-year-old who was shot at the event and later died at a hospital went to the Giffords event with a neighbor because she had just been elected to the student council and was interested in government, her uncle told KTAR in Phoenix.
Born Sept. 11, 2001, according to NBC station KVOA, she attended Mesa Verde Elementary School.
Christina was also involved in ballet, baseball and her church.
She just received her first Holy Communion at St. Odelia’s Catholic Church on Tucson’s northwest wide, Catholic Diocese of Tucson officials said.
“‘Let the children come to me,’ Jesus said (Matthew 19:14). Christina is with Him,†Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson Bishop Gerald F.Kicanas wrote in a prepared statement from Jordan, where he is attending a bishops’ meeting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40983356/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
To be honest I'm not sure what exactly the relationship between the classmate and the shooter was. I am sure nothing quoted above infers that he was tea party member sent on a mission from Palin to shoot a crowd of people this morning... Which is the claim that you're making.
Because it's more of logical conclusion than tea party conspiracy that you're harping on. He was at least described as liberal by someone from his home town. That holds more water than a left wing elitist making wild accusations from3000 miles away.
As fun as it sounds to graze over this post and insert quotes of your outlandish claims... Unfortunately I'm bored with the argument. If only your performance this evening was a good as your portrayal of Rocky Dennis. Give Rusty & Gar a big high 5 "shwaz called the student a 'friend'... He sure did Rock...and you showed him"
G'night Rocky
Quote from: Shwaz on January 09, 2011, 02:10:44 AM
As fun as it sounds to graze over this post and insert quotes of your outlandish claims... Unfortunately I'm bored with the argument. If only your performance this evening was a good as your portrayal of Rocky Dennis. Give Rusty & Gar a big high 5 "shwaz called the student a 'friend'... He sure did Rock...and you showed him"
Funny how people always get "bored" or "tired of the debate" once they get busted for doing the very same thing they were stalwartly accusing someone else of. There must be a specific gene for this trait in human DNA.
It's unfortunate that this discussion turned political. From all I have read this morning, he has been mentally unstable for many years, so much so he was suspended from Community College and not able to return without medical clearance, was not allowed to enter the Army and alienated his classmates. That he wanted his currency backed by gold or was anti-abortion seems to be a red herring.
After sufficient concern to remove a student from school, what did his parents do to see that he had some treatment?
If the target of this lunatic wasn't a political figure, then the conversation probably wouldn't have turned political. It certainly appears that the congresswoman was indeed, his target...and then some.
What gets me, are the comments as to how he's unstable...well, no kidding...would any sane/stable person go out and commit such a horrific act of killing and injuring innocent people? Saying this killer is unstable...well, hello!
I also find it eerie that the little girl killed, was born on 9/11/01....is it just me, or does anyone see how this screams out about how horrific hatred and the spewing of hatred leads to unjustified killing?
That there happened to be a young girl killed who was born on September 11, 2001 is a mere coincidence. To use it as an example of anything else is to be only inflammatory and salacious. Her death would be no more or less tragic had she been born on September 10, 2001.
That the conversation went immediately into drivel about this or that party and planks, etc., is exactly what we don't need any longer. "When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," said the sheriff.
I think that this is worth everyone reading. (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline)
It's undeniable that this guy was insane. But if you actually read the text of his manifesto videos, it falls right in line with tea party ideology.
The problem is that there are elements of the right that have fanned the flames, enabling something like this to happen. When you call for violent uprising, you have to realize that there are elements of society that may take it to heart.
The good thing is, this completely ruins any chance of Sarah Palin running for president. The bad thing is that this completely ruins any chance of Sarah Palin running for president, which would make it an easy dem pick.
Quote from: RiversideLoki on January 09, 2011, 07:23:11 PM
The good thing is, this completely ruins any chance of Sarah Palin running for president. The bad thing is that this completely ruins any chance of Sarah Palin running for president, which would make it an easy dem pick.
(http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline)
It's interesting that Sarah Palin's website that had the map with Gabrielle Giffords as one of the targets first denied that the gun sights on the website were anything to do with guns, then (today) took down the map.
Your rush to blame the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for the behavior of this deranged individual is as pathetic as it is predictable.
Are you implying that I posted that because someone told me to? If so, that makes you even more pathetic.
Can't everybody calm down? We shouldn't be blaming anybody for this tragedy because we simply don't know the facts yet. We don't know if this wasn't a planned assassination attempt by any organization, and I suspect it will turn out that this individual acted on his own.
And without blaming the tea-party or Sarah Palin or Karl Marx or anybody else... shouldn't we be thinking about the violent rhetoric that we hear from political groups and the media today? Anyone that thinks Palin's "target the democrat" post we actually meant to incite violence need to chill! We will never know what motivated this guy, so stop speculating about it.
However, I think it's a good idea to lay off the violence metaphors in the name of public safety and good taste. It's fair to assume that nut-jobs like Loughner are influenced by the violent rhetoric prevalent in politics today. whether that rhetoric is coming from the left or right. There are sick people out there that listen to this stuff and take it for real. Let's all stop feeding their illness, OK?
Quote from: middleman on January 09, 2011, 09:31:52 PM
Can't everybody calm down? We shouldn't be blaming anybody for this tragedy because we simply don't know the facts yet. We don't know if this wasn't a planned assassination attempt by any organization, and I suspect it will turn out that this individual acted on his own.
And without blaming the tea-party or Sarah Palin or Karl Marx or anybody else... shouldn't we be thinking about the violent rhetoric that we hear from political groups and the media today? Anyone that thinks Palin's "target the democrat" post we actually meant to incite violence need to chill! We will never know what motivated this guy, so stop speculating about it.
However, I think it's a good idea to lay off the violence metaphors in the name of public safety and good taste. It's fair to assume that nut-jobs like Loughner are influenced by the violent rhetoric prevalent in politics today. whether that rhetoric is coming from the left or right. There are sick people out there that listen to this stuff and take it for real. Let's all stop feeding their illness, OK?
Thats quite sensible but wont get much suport here, watch all the nuty posts. Puffington Hosts posts should skyrocket. expect the lecture on being polite also its past due
QuoteNow who was it that was explaining there was no right wing violence problem in Arizona a few months ago. If I remember correctly it was in the context of how the mexicans were so dangerous that they needed to be herded out of the state.....
Something about the Tea Party and how patriotic they all were. Can't seem to remember who that was coming from here on our boards.......
Oh, Stephen. Your need to bait individuals into an argument where you can present yourself as in some way superior is what is truly astounding here. I haven't yet whittled my pettiness to a fine point. Do you offer classes? Should I make my payments directly to you or have you founded some organization? Have you not yet created that textbook? I like options.
Interesting that two of these topics where we have different perspectives have been about mentally unstable individuals. I think there needs to be improved handling of the mentally ill; maybe if we get them treated, perhaps the most vehement, violent, vitriolic of the bunch will fall by the wayside when suitably medicated.
It's hard to find an actual issue in the current political discourse without it turning into quien es mas macho. The Tea Party is violent, the Democrats like to goad and mock and the Republicans can't seem to figure out what the hell is going on anymore. But what they all know is the other guy is wrong and nothing can convince them otherwise. Propaganda is propaganda whether it comes from Communists or Message Board Thread titles. I happen to be against it in all forms. The violent rhetoric is being ratcheted up further when people can't just let it go that they aren't always right.
Quote from: JMac on January 09, 2011, 08:39:47 PM
Your rush to blame the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for the behavior of this deranged individual is as pathetic as it is predictable.
Really?
Stephen's not the one with a self-titled "Target List" of his most-hated political candidates in convenient map-form with gun sights placed over their locations and the phrase "
We've diagnosed the problem...Help us prescribe the solution" emblazoned on top of it. That would be Sarah Palin wouldn't it...
(http://www.registercitizen.com/content/articles/2011/01/09/news/doc4d28d86151dca300929760.png)
If they find that screenshot in his pocket, get back to me.
Meh... yawn... consider the source... The daily kos... ::)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/8/934526/-Insurrection-timeline
:D ::) Hardly...
This does look like this case is a good candidate for the Federal death penalty though...
"If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking." - Michael Moore
Quote from: RiversideLoki on January 10, 2011, 09:39:12 AM
"If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking." - Michael Moore
We'd be told not to jump to conclusions. Remember Ft. Hood?
And Times Square? Bloomberg said he was probably a Tea Partier. And Christmas Day bomber? How about following the same advice now and wait until the facts come out.
Quote(CNN) -- Until we have more definitive information about the shooter, pointing fingers at who might bear responsibility for the Tucson, Arizona, massacre only contributes to what we must end in America: a toxic political environment.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/09/gergen.pointing.fingers/index.html?hpt=T2 (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/09/gergen.pointing.fingers/index.html?hpt=T2)
QuoteSoon after the news broke, the internet lit up with accusations, even before we knew anything at all about the man who pulled the trigger. Much of the early commentary, especially from the left, blamed the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, etc. for employing a rhetoric of militarism and creating a climate of hate.
Quote from: RiversideLoki on January 10, 2011, 09:39:12 AM
"If a Detroit Muslim put a map on the web w/crosshairs on 20 pols, then 1 of them got shot, where would he b sitting right now? Just asking." - Michael Moore
We'd probably be at war with yet another country based on bogus intelligence already...
Loughner's motive for the shooting MAY have been because of her answer to his question at an event in 2007.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=1 (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message?page=1)
Where are his eyebrows???
Quote from: stephendare on January 11, 2011, 02:31:40 PM
(https://motherjones.com/files/images/loughner-mugshot.jpg)(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_bQsuhPJduqQ/TTcaIgANcBI/AAAAAAAAD9g/Oh0gincAoi4/s800/RICKscott.jpg)
Kind of scary isn't it?OCKLAWAHA
LOL. I knew the guy had that "familiar" look. After $75 million in TV propaganda commercials and your assist, Ock, I now know why. They also have in common that they are equally disconnected from reality and that whatever they say, no one can make any sense out of it! ;D
I don't know why people are still speculating he was a Tea Partier. He was neither right nor left. He was simply a deranged, mentally unstable stalker who had been stalking this woman for a while and he clearly needed help. Unfortunately there are too many people like him in the world. Our brain is so complex and so easily messed up in many ways we still barely even understand and anyone can lose it at some point. We used to have insane asylums and psychiatric clinics for people who were a danger to themselves and to other people, but the PC crowd helped to put an end to them (for the most part).
This guy simply just didn't need to be walking around with the general public, and nobody needs a semi-automatic with an oversized 31 round magazine/clip. This whole issue is literally not about politics.
We need our 2nd amendment, but we don't need free range to buy military grade weapons. A simply handgun for concealed carry (which by the way has stopped many of these horrible attacks when police weren't around) and a shotgun/rifle for hunting will do, with licenses and background checks.
We also need pyschiatric wards, kind of like nursing homes, for these kind of people. Many of them do not have family who will pay to put them up in a nice place, so we need taxpayer funded mental clinics/hospitals. How many times a year do we have to hear about some similar tragedy only to find out the person has been mentally unstable and unbalanced for at least a while if not his/her whole life? And let's not even mention how many serial rapists are mentally ill, yet all we do is lock them up for a little while and then release them only to have the same thing happen over and over and over again.
I just found out that even MARTA girl in Atlanta was mentally unstable and that she was very embarassed that she went off like that and that it was filmed. She is now in one of our few mental institutions and apparently doing much better. Heck, sometimes even I think I'm going mental, haven't we all? Just imagine all the people out there who need help, and 50 years ago would have been able to receive it (albeit with occasional unscrupulous places), but now they are largely gone.
If we had better laws and better/more mental institutions where people would stay, then this guy would never have killed all these people and he wouldn't now be facing actual prison time for the rest of his life. Those who knew him knew he was a wacko and that he was sick. A mental clinic is better than a prison, although the PC crowd will tell you otherwise. How many countless other people are out there just like him waiting go ballistic?
Agreed that we need to address the mental health/hospitalization issue. But I disagree with you on the second amendment issue. The 2nd is not about hunting. It is about the people retaining arms, to be used at the threat of tyranny if need be as well as protection of one's self and family. ALL of the framers of the U S Constitution advocated private ownership of firearms. There is no question in my mind that the private ownership of semi auto hi capacity magazine weapons is a natural right, and supported by the second amendment.
I agree with Stephen on where I think he is going with this. Clearly the Founding Fathers framed our country so that the government would never and could never become oppressive over the people, and an armed militia populace was one of the safeguards against that. I don't think the Founding Fathers imagined a society in which people such as this mentally ill guy with a history could get their hands on a weapon that could fire 31 times without reloading (and basically just re-pulling the trigger, if that).
In today's world, I don't think we have an imminent threat of the government/military taking complete dictatorial control, so when I think of the 2nd Amendment, I just want to be able to have concealed carry or at least a handgun in my house for protection, and I want to be able to own shotguns for trap shooting and hunting. Take these away from me and I'm pretty unhappy! :) Also, our military population is pretty Conservative, socially and fiscally. They aren't going to take over this country. They are red-blooded all American types and fresh immigrants who came to this country for freedoms and the chance to make it for their family. A coup is not on their mind and they surely do not support huge, restricting government (I mean I wonder how many of our military left their countries precisely for that reason?).
Well let's be honest, the military is so technologically advanced that nothing we could develop or obtain as civilians would mount any resistance to it whatsoever. Some guy a thousand miles away can literally push a button and blow me up at this point. Accordingly, the only thing our adherence to the second amendment is accomplishing is enabling these type of violent mass murders. Small arms wouldn't provide any resistance to government oppression, it just lets people shoot each other. The second amendment is a classic example of what happens with you interpret an old document so illogically literally that it can't keep up with changing times. When it was written, a soldier with a gun was no better prepared than a citizen with a gun, technology has changed all that.
And full disclosure, I'm a gun owner and CWP holder, and I still feel this way about the asinine arguments claiming that the second amendment is the one and only portion of the constitution that is never subject to any temporal interpretation or analysis in light of the framers' intent. The intent was plainly as a backstop against government oppression, and small arms no longer serve that purpose because of advanced military technology. The sole and singular purpose of the amendment has been nullified by the progression of time.
Quoteget their hands on a weapon that could fire 31 times without reloading (and basically just re-pulling the trigger, if that).
What I don't understand is, Why make this gun in the first place?? Are you going to use it for hunting? No! Is there any sort of sport environment that would require you to shoot 31 targets? NO! Is there any reason other than violence that would make this gun necessary? NO!!!
When the 2nd amendment was written, I also think the founding fathers thought that you could conceal a gun in your pocket that could potentially kill 30+ people in less than a minute.
Watch the movie, "Red Dawn", and you'll realize how archaic the idea of civilians resisting any government oppression would be. "Resistance is Futile".
Also don't forget that there was no standing army of any size in the US at the time the amendment was written, that there were hostile Native Americans in a lot of the woods and an outnumbered white population in the South that feared slave rebellion. Militias were literally seen as the first line of defense.
"Well regulated" at the time also did not mean following a bunch of written rules, but well drilled in marching and shooting as a group.
That's the one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn
Although the story line is larger, my premise is still sound. Civilians do not stand a snowballs chance when confronting government - any government - and their arsenal and training.
Quote from: stephendare on January 20, 2011, 10:35:44 AM
Quote from: Ralph W on January 20, 2011, 10:29:14 AM
Watch the movie, "Red Dawn", and you'll realize how archaic the idea of civilians resisting any government oppression would be. "Resistance is Futile".
Isnt Red Dawn about a Cuban advance of a Soviet Invasion?
Starring Patrick Swayze?
I think the ending of that movie was when the soviet union collapsed after invading Afghanistan for 7 years while trying to be an international badass by spending all of its money on the military rather than the people?
Lol you'd think we would have learned something from the Russians but I guess it's easier to spend several trillion invading the same unconquerable countries than to spend $20 on a history book. Well I suppose we'd have had to spend $199 on Hooked-on-Phonics for our president at the time, too. So he could read the history book.
IMO even with a ban on weapons events like this in Arizona would continue to happen. Was it easy for this deranged maniac to purchase his weapons? Yes... but probably just as easy as assembling a pipe bomb. He was somewhat educated and obviously motivated.
Quote from: stephendare on January 20, 2011, 10:57:22 AM
Quote from: Shwaz on January 20, 2011, 10:54:56 AM
IMO even with a ban on weapons events like this in Arizona would continue to happen. Was it easy for this deranged maniac to purchase his weapons? Yes... but probably just as easy as assembling a pipe bomb. He was somewhat educated and obviously motivated.
Except that if he used a pipe bomb, it would have been a pipe bombing, and not an event like this.
For the record, he also didnt use a dirty nuke, an exploding cigar, or poison the water supply.
So take away the guns of the world and this never happens again... unless one can harness enriched uranium or poison the well?
Quote from: Shwaz on January 20, 2011, 10:54:56 AM
IMO even with a ban on weapons events like this in Arizona would continue to happen. Was it easy for this deranged maniac to purchase his weapons? Yes... but probably just as easy as assembling a pipe bomb. He was somewhat educated and obviously motivated.
They do sweeps for pipe bombs and whatnot at these types of events, the danger would be much lower without someone's ability to come in personally and shoot the place up. This is why terrorism is so effective, you can nullify the threats from bombs and whatnot with searches and detectors, but when a physical person decides that killing you is more important to him than his own safety, his own life, or any consequences if he gets caught, then once someone repudiates their own logical self interests like that there's really very little our society can do about it.
Our law enforcement techniques are all developed around rational self interest, and when someone isn't acting rationally anything can happen. You could literally just walk up shoot the president, or in this case a congressman, if you just didn't care at all about what happened to you. Thankfully 99.999999% of people do care what happens to their own life or safety and that's what keeps things safe in our system. But bombs and whatnot aren't the same kind of threat, because you can sweep for those. How do you sweep for total insanity?
Quote from: stephendare on January 20, 2011, 10:48:26 AM
Quote from: Ralph W on January 20, 2011, 10:44:31 AM
That's the one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn
Although the story line is larger, my premise is still sound. Civilians do not stand a snowballs chance when confronting government - any government - and their arsenal and training.
It was one of my favorite movies as a kid, actually.
I don't know about that. Governing an occupied land is a pretty difficult task even when the people like you. The Civilians seem to be holding out pretty well in Afghanistan against a military whose capabilities were literally science fiction at the time that Red Dawn was made.
Read "Charlie Wilson's War" regarding Afganistan in the early '80's. If the narrative is even close to factual then our very own Uncle Sam's CIA funded and trained the Afgans, helping drive out the Russians. The "Freedom Fighters" were nothing but cannon fodder until "government" with clout and weapons stepped up to the plate.
Quote from: Ralph W on January 20, 2011, 11:05:14 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 20, 2011, 10:48:26 AM
Quote from: Ralph W on January 20, 2011, 10:44:31 AM
That's the one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn
Although the story line is larger, my premise is still sound. Civilians do not stand a snowballs chance when confronting government - any government - and their arsenal and training.
It was one of my favorite movies as a kid, actually.
I don't know about that. Governing an occupied land is a pretty difficult task even when the people like you. The Civilians seem to be holding out pretty well in Afghanistan against a military whose capabilities were literally science fiction at the time that Red Dawn was made.
Read "Charlie Wilson's War" regarding Afganistan in the early '80's. If the narrative is even close to factual then our very own Uncle Sam's CIA funded and trained the Afgans, helping drive out the Russians. The "Freedom Fighters" were nothing but cannon fodder until "government" with clout and weapons stepped up to the plate.
Yes, and now the unspoken truth presently is that the entire Muslim world (again comprised of governments) is supporting the resistance in Afghanistan the same as we did against the Russians. Kind of funny really.
Quote from: stephendare on January 20, 2011, 11:06:49 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 20, 2011, 11:04:52 AM
Quote from: Shwaz on January 20, 2011, 10:54:56 AM
IMO even with a ban on weapons events like this in Arizona would continue to happen. Was it easy for this deranged maniac to purchase his weapons? Yes... but probably just as easy as assembling a pipe bomb. He was somewhat educated and obviously motivated.
They do sweeps for pipe bombs and whatnot at these types of events, the danger would be much lower without someone's ability to come in personally and shoot the place up. This is why terrorism is so effective, you can nullify the threats from bombs and whatnot with searches and detectors, but when a physical person decides that killing you is more important to him than his own safety, his own life, or any consequences if he gets caught, then once someone repudiates their own logical self interests like that there's really very little our society can do about it.
Our law enforcement techniques are all developed around rational self interest, and when someone isn't acting rationally anything can happen. You could literally just walk up shoot the president, or in this case a congressman, if you just didn't care at all about what happened to you. Thankfully 99.999999% of people do care what happens to their own life or safety and that's what keeps things safe in our system. But bombs and whatnot aren't the same kind of threat, because you can sweep for those. How do you sweep for total insanity?
Well now Chris, Apparently Schwaz has uncovered a new proposal to ban all guns in the entire world. You have to admit thats pretty extreme, right?
I wonder it 'all' guns includes potato pellet and pop guns as well?
Schwaz. Im literally just breathless to see this proposal you are talking about.
Calm yourself... restore your breathing. It seems to me the discussion had shifted towards the validity of second amendment rights.. and my opinion is that lunatics like this would continue with violent acts even without the right to bear arms.
Did I accuse anyone of making that proposal?
Quote from: Shwaz on January 20, 2011, 11:02:10 AM
So take away the guns of the world and this never happens again...
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 20, 2011, 11:55:52 AM
Quote from: Shwaz on January 20, 2011, 11:02:10 AM
So take away the guns of the world and this never happens again...
Still not an accusation. I simply stated "IMO even with a ban on weapons events like this in Arizona would continue to happen"
Quote from: stephendare on January 20, 2011, 12:03:37 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on January 20, 2011, 11:02:10 AM
So take away the guns of the world and this never happens again... unless one can harness enriched uranium or poison the well?
oh? Who published this quote under your name then?
I merely mentioned my thoughts on a hypothetical situation. It's seems you disagree that other means could be used in a terrorist attack.
QuoteFor the record, he also didnt use a dirty nuke, an exploding cigar, or poison the water supply.
Still, I never accused anyone of proposing a nationwide weapons ban.
Quote from: Shwaz on January 20, 2011, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 20, 2011, 12:03:37 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on January 20, 2011, 11:02:10 AM
So take away the guns of the world and this never happens again... unless one can harness enriched uranium or poison the well?
oh? Who published this quote under your name then?
I merely mentioned my thoughts on a hypothetical situation. It's seems you disagree that other means could be used in a terrorist attack.
QuoteFor the record, he also didnt use a dirty nuke, an exploding cigar, or poison the water supply.
Still, I never accused anyone of proposing a nationwide weapons ban.
Nice to see that 2+2=73
Quote from: stephendare on January 19, 2011, 10:49:53 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 19, 2011, 10:28:48 PM
Agreed that we need to address the mental health/hospitalization issue. But I disagree with you on the second amendment issue. The 2nd is not about hunting. It is about the people retaining arms, to be used at the threat of tyranny if need be as well as protection of one's self and family. ALL of the framers of the U S Constitution advocated private ownership of firearms. There is no question in my mind that the private ownership of semi auto hi capacity magazine weapons is a natural right, and supported by the second amendment.
I happen to agree with you on this issue, notnow, but I am curious how you square this last statement with the viewpoints of the framers. Remember these men came from a true warrior culture, where bloodshed was honorably conducted. I do not believe any of them would have had a taste for a weapon that sprays bullets indiscriminately into a crowd.
I am interested in your response.
The men used the most technologically advanced weapons of their time. They believed in an armed populace. And I believe that they would answer you the same as I do:
The weapon does not "spray bullets indiscrimanately", the person holding it did. He could have killed more people indiscriminately with a car...or a bomb. The tool used in this awful crime is NOT the criminal.
I don't believe that the fact that the technology changes belays the principle of the freedoms expressed in the Constitution. We don't restrict freedom of speech because of television and radio. We don't restrict the freedom to assemble because of planes, trains, and automobiles. All of these technologies amplify the ability to misuse a particular human right and pervert that right into a crime.
Whether or not a military force can be overcome is pretty irrelevant. If that is a deciding issue, then I would rather favor the issuance of military arms to citizens in the Swiss style, or allowing private purchase of military hardware before I would favor disarming the populace. I would certainly return to the old "armory" system of storing our military weapons throughout the country. And don't discount the stunning power of 100 million pissed off armed citizens. I can point to several instances where the military did not support, or did not fully support it's government during popular rebellion.
Also, just because one does not feel any imminent threat from any government tyranny at this time, does not mean that throwing out the wisdom of the founding fathers is the correct course of action. That wisdom is one of the very reasons that we have a government of the people still. Rather, we should remain vigilant against the erosion of ANY of our human rights.
Quote from: NotNow on January 20, 2011, 01:05:32 PM
I don't believe that the fact that the technology changes belays the principle of the freedoms expressed in the Constitution. We don't restrict freedom of speech because of television and radio. We don't restrict the freedom to assemble because of planes, trains, and automobiles. All of these technologies amplify the ability to misuse a particular human right and pervert that right into a crime.
Whether or not a military force can be overcome is pretty irrelevant. If that is a deciding issue, then I would rather favor the issuance of military arms to citizens in the Swiss style, or allowing private purchase of military hardware before I would favor disarming the populace. I would certainly return to the old "armory" system of storing our military weapons throughout the country. And don't discount the stunning power of 100 million pissed off armed citizens. I can point to several instances where the military did not support, or did not fully support it's government during popular rebellion.
Also, just because one does not feel any imminent threat from any government tyranny at this time, does not mean that throwing out the wisdom of the founding fathers is the correct course of action. That wisdom is one of the very reasons that we have a government of the people still. Rather, we should remain vigilant against the erosion of ANY of our human rights.
The problem with that argument is that it entered the realm of being utterly absurd 100 years ago.
If we are entitled to possess the arms regardless of technology, based on the original intent of the second amendment, then why aren't I allowed to have a personal nuclear bomb? After all, it doesn't kill people, people do, right? And since the government is allowed to have it, and we're honoring the original spirit of the second amendment without regard to what that means technologically, then that would be perfectly kosher under the original intent of that passage in the BOR wouldn't it? If the orignal intent of combatting government tyranny is still to be honored today, then why can't I have my own tanks, battleships, hydrogen bombs, missiles, and pretty much everything else the military has that I'd get arrested in 5 seconds flat if I even thought about having as a private individual?
And with all of that being the reality, then haven't we already departed from the true intent of the second amendment? The government made it illegal to own anything that could actually stand up to government weapons long ago, and all you NRA folk were asleep at the switch on that one. Now we're just debating whether we can own things to kill each other or not, and nothing you or I could possess would ever stand up to the government's arsenal. The original intent was already left by the wayside 100 years ago...
Also, if you're suggesting that if things got bad enough, the military would disobey the government in today's day and age, I kind of question that. Some people are so brainwashed in our society that you can get them to do whatever you want, regardless of its moral value. I think that would be a pipe dream.
Your wrong about the military. You have probably not had much exposure to the real Armed Forces and are basing your opinion on popular culture. The United States Armed Forces has some of the finest and most educated patriotic minds in the country. They would be some of the first to recognize tyranny...and reject it. And again, I can point to numerous instances in other countries where the military refused to go against the people.
Your focus on a small portion of my previous post is unfortunate, in that I would like to hear your ideas on my other points. But as to the point of "entitlement" to weapons of war I would answer that is still largely the case. You can still own a machine gun if you pay the fees and buy the stamps. If you can afford a battleship or a submarine you don't need the governments permission. Nuclear weapons are not commercially available and their production is tightly controlled by a few governments so that argument is moot. There is little doubt in my mind as to the outcome of any conflict between an armed American populace of 300 milion citizens and a government relying on their sons and daughters to subdue them. That is the current reality. The original intent of the second amendment is still valid and is a natural law in my mind. Every person has the right to defend themselves and to keep and bear arms. Owning things that kill each other? Really? Your entire block can be killed with what you have stored under your kitchen sink. Humans can be killled quickly and efficiently by literally thousands of items. Why would we ignore natural rights and take away personal defense weapons in the misguided belief that it would stop killing?
Chris, you are speaking like a lawyer. :)
Notnow, I agree, we as the people should always be vigilant because what government doesn't want to expand?
Schwaz, you posed a hypothetical question and everyone jumped on you for making an absurd statement. I understand your point.
Me, I think we can "ban" guns and we'll quickly find that all the criminals and underground elements of our society are still arming themselves with automatic/semi-automatic weapons from Mexico and other places. I think we can ban semi-automatic rifles with 31 round clips because a rational American who's sane can easily put an end to a madman like in Tucson with just 1-2 bullets and all it usually takes is just a couple of bullets to defend yourself against an intruder in your home.
Quote from: simms3 on January 20, 2011, 06:32:29 PM
Chris, you are speaking like a lawyer. :)
Notnow, I agree, we as the people should always be vigilant because what government doesn't want to expand?
Schwaz, you posed a hypothetical question and everyone jumped on you for making an absurd statement. I understand your point.
Me, I think we can "ban" guns and we'll quickly find that all the criminals and underground elements of our society are still arming themselves with automatic/semi-automatic weapons from Mexico and other places. I think we can ban semi-automatic rifles with 31 round clips because a rational American who's sane can easily put an end to a madman like in Tucson with just 1-2 bullets and all it usually takes is just a couple of bullets to defend yourself against an intruder in your home.
Yeah, and sometimes things are exactly what they seem with no counter intuition necessary. The UK has severe restrictions on firearms, and their police don't even carry guns, and their violent crime rates are a fraction of ours. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Quote from: NotNow on January 20, 2011, 06:15:30 PM
Your wrong about the military. You have probably not had much exposure to the real Armed Forces and are basing your opinion on popular culture. The United States Armed Forces has some of the finest and most educated patriotic minds in the country. They would be some of the first to recognize tyranny...and reject it. And again, I can point to numerous instances in other countries where the military refused to go against the people.
Your focus on a small portion of my previous post is unfortunate, in that I would like to hear your ideas on my other points. But as to the point of "entitlement" to weapons of war I would answer that is still largely the case. You can still own a machine gun if you pay the fees and buy the stamps. If you can afford a battleship or a submarine you don't need the governments permission. Nuclear weapons are not commercially available and their production is tightly controlled by a few governments so that argument is moot. There is little doubt in my mind as to the outcome of any conflict between an armed American populace of 300 milion citizens and a government relying on their sons and daughters to subdue them. That is the current reality. The original intent of the second amendment is still valid and is a natural law in my mind. Every person has the right to defend themselves and to keep and bear arms. Owning things that kill each other? Really? Your entire block can be killed with what you have stored under your kitchen sink. Humans can be killled quickly and efficiently by literally thousands of items. Why would we ignore natural rights and take away personal defense weapons in the misguided belief that it would stop killing?
Bull.
It took photos getting leaked to the media from Lindi England's myspace page to blow the lid off Abu Graib, dozens of people were involved in that and none of them said a peep about wrongfully torturing people, did they? And it took WikiLeaks releasing videos showing US forces gunning down innocent journalists, lying about it, and congratulating each other before we found out about it, I didn't see the military disclosing that or taking any action other than a coverup during the three years between the incident and the release of the video.
If that same military is the last line of defense against our government's wrongful actions, then we're really screwed. That whole culture is bred and trained to instill following orders without questioning the underlying logic, so are you really telling me you're comfortable allowing people in the employ and pay of the government to police the decisions of that same government against their own self interests, against their chain of command, and when their entire culture revolves around following orders? That's utterly preposterous.
QuoteYeah, and sometimes things are exactly what they seem with no counter intuition necessary. The UK has severe restrictions on firearms, and their police don't even carry guns, and their violent crime rates are a fraction of ours. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Come on, Chris! You know that's a bad argument. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is familiar to you. The Brits simply don't have to\he culture of violence and guns that we do. Unfortunately that is changing and the use of guns by criminals there is rising. You've got a good point but need to make it in another way.
Switzerland has a lower crime rate than we do (shady banking aside) and most homes have military weapons in them.
I don't think that there is an association between gun laws and the level of violence. It's a cultural thing independent of the laws.
In any case, no matter what laws we pass, the genie is out of the bottle and we can never put it back in. We can ban 31 round magazines right now and there are still millions of them out there already. We can ban hand guns now, but can never recover the 100 million plus that are already out there. There are other more effective ways of reducing gun violence faster than gun control laws.
Chris, your mind is obviously made up. My opinion of the military is based on decades of direct participation and observation. But you do make my point in your second paragraph. The last line of defense against tyranny is not the military, but the people.
The second amendment is clear in it's meaning. The founding fathers expounded on the principle many times in their public and private writing. Basic human rights don't change over time.
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 21, 2011, 08:19:56 AM
QuoteYeah, and sometimes things are exactly what they seem with no counter intuition necessary. The UK has severe restrictions on firearms, and their police don't even carry guns, and their violent crime rates are a fraction of ours. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Come on, Chris! You know that's a bad argument. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is familiar to you. The Brits simply don't have to\he culture of violence and guns that we do. Unfortunately that is changing and the use of guns by criminals there is rising. You've got a good point but need to make it in another way.
Switzerland has a lower crime rate than we do (shady banking aside) and most homes have military weapons in them.
I don't think that there is an association between gun laws and the level of violence. It's a cultural thing independent of the laws.
In any case, no matter what laws we pass, the genie is out of the bottle and we can never put it back in. We can ban 31 round magazines right now and there are still millions of them out there already. We can ban hand guns now, but can never recover the 100 million plus that are already out there. There are other more effective ways of reducing gun violence faster than gun control laws.
It all, I think anyway, boils down to the romanticization of guns and violence in our culture to a large extent. I like bowling for columbine, and though I hate to use a Michael Moore movie as an example (since NotNow is going to be sitting over there going 'aha! I knew it!') I think it sums up all the cultural reasons why our society is comparatively violent. But still, my point here was really more that the original intent behind the second amendment was to have an armed populace serve as a backstop against government tyranny, and that is no longer possible because of the march of technology. Unless we are willing to allow private individuals or groups to own military grade weapons then the original intent of the second amendment was already abrogated.
And NotNow, you cannot legally own those things. Sure you can buy a ship or a tank or a plane or whatever, but they completely disable all the guns and fire control systems and they cannot legally be in firing condition if you own it privately. In most states it would also be illegal to own the powder and explosives the military uses without a bunch of licenses and permits that won't be granted when you tell them you're building a private militia. Under no circumstances would you legally be able to own half of the US arsenal, let's see you try and buy a functional missile or some enriched uranium and see how long it would take for that knock on the door to come.
I guess my point here all along was simply that the original intent of the second amendment has already been squashed by the government's possession of military grade weaponry and by its outlawing the ownership of that stuff by private individuals. Yes you can buy a used ship or plane as a private group, but you're not allowed to have it in firing condition. There is no way any private arms can stand up to military weapons, so all of this talk about strict construction and the founders intent is really impossible when you think about it.
I addressed the nuclear bomb issue in an earlier post. It is not a valid argument in this debate. I'm not sure where you are getting or are going with the churches and civic organizations thing. I have not mentioned or argued such a point. I have also not addressed the source of tyranny, or mentioned a particular form of it. To go down that road would be nonproductive, and not pertinent to the right of an individual to protect him or herself as well as the right to resist tyranny.
Ah! I knew it! :)
Again, the nuclear question is moot. Nuclear weapons are not commercially available to anyone and are the exclusive development of a small number of nations. So take that off the table. It is quite legal to own armored vehicles and other military grade weapons in this country (and many others. Most often, it is a question of money.) You still greatly underestimate the power of an armed populace that is of one mind. I do not think that the original intent of the second amendment is limited to resisting tyranny, although that is one of the reasons specified by the founding fathers it is certainly not the only one.
But if you believe that it is no longer possible to resist the government as the founding fathers intended, then the answer in my mind is NOT to disregard what the founders put in our Constitution, but to make our government conform to that charter document. Otherwise, just wad up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and throw it away, because none of our liberties are safe from such a government.
QuoteI guess my point here all along was simply that the original intent of the second amendment has already been squashed by the government's possession of military grade weaponry and by its outlawing the ownership of that stuff by private individuals.
Then I guess you can understand those defending the last remaining shred of our right to keep and bear arms is so vehemently defended. Apparently our government has already removed most of our right to keep most weapons. Understandably... they are not willing to voluntarily give up what is left.
Just to stir the pot, what might be the definition of "arms" envisioned by the framers of the constitution?
"Arms" as they existed in their day or as they might someday be advanced by future technologies such that they might not be recognizable to someone of that era?
Where does the term "arms" begin and end with respect to swords, bayonets, knives, single shot guns, automatic multi-shot guns, grenades and bazookas, artillery, various bombs, missiles, plastic explosives, tanks, planes, submarines, ships, drones, chemical and biological warfare, nuclear devices, lasers, electromagnetic or other energy beams/waves, star wars, etc.? Is an "arm" anything that can destroy human life or something more limited?
Feel free to discuss! ;D
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 11:42:46 AM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 11:33:54 AM
I addressed the nuclear bomb issue in an earlier post. It is not a valid argument in this debate. I'm not sure where you are getting or are going with the churches and civic organizations thing. I have not mentioned or argued such a point. I have also not addressed the source of tyranny, or mentioned a particular form of it. To go down that road would be nonproductive, and not pertinent to the right of an individual to protect him or herself as well as the right to resist tyranny.
meh, thats a copout.
If we illegalized assault weapons they would also be a moot point since that is your argument.
A tyrannical government by definition would be the government of the united states, so you did directly mention the source of the tyranny.
After all, you can't be tyrannized by china unless they defeat the US first-----after which they would be the government in place.....the evasion is silly.
If you back the 2nd amendment sheerly on the basis of providing a disincentive to 'tyranny', then following your logic, it would have to be a credible opposition.
Why wouldnt you be for widespread WMDs using the same logic?
Copout? No, it is a fact. Nuclear weapons are not available. They are treated differently even by our own government, and are issued to and returned by our military to the civilian agency charged with building, manageing, and maintaining them.
Making something illegal does not make it impossible to acquire. And "assault weapons" is a term that is not defined, so I'm not sure what you mean by it.
You can be tyrannized by a federal government, a state government, a municipal government, a business, corporation, or organization, as well as thugs and neer do wells.
Your WMD statement makes no sense at all.
Opinions differ, I have mine. But the meaning and intent of the founding fathers is quite clear. And as I suggested to Chris, if ANY adjustment needs to be made, then we and our government should conform to the Constitution, not the other way around.
The founders seemed to be pretty bright guys. Quite sure the understood the evolution of "arms" up to their era. Seems to me they would be able to forsee the future evolutions of "arms".
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 11:47:38 AM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 11:44:11 AM
Again, the nuclear question is moot. Nuclear weapons are not commercially available to anyone and are the exclusive development of a small number of nations. So take that off the table. It is quite legal to own armored vehicles and other military grade weapons in this country (and many others. Most often, it is a question of money.) You still greatly underestimate the power of an armed populace that is of one mind. I do not think that the original intent of the second amendment is limited to resisting tyranny, although that is one of the reasons specified by the founding fathers it is certainly not the only one.
But if you believe that it is no longer possible to resist the government as the founding fathers intended, then the answer in my mind is NOT to disregard what the founders put in our Constitution, but to make our government conform to that charter document. Otherwise, just wad up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and throw it away, because none of our liberties are safe from such a government.
So how did those weapons become illegal? and why? Do you support the laws that keep nuclear weapons illegal?
And if you truly believe in restoring some sort of equity to the military power of the people vs the government wouldnt that mean disarming the police and dismissing the military except as a defensive force in times of attack?
(sigh) Let me explain again. Nuclear weapons are not available. They are the exclusive property of a very few nations. You can not buy one...anywhere.
"Illegal" weapons on the other hand, are simply commercially available weapons that are outlawed by whatever government has jurisdiction. An "illegal" weapon in the US would be a ground to ground missile. Then there are regulated weapons and the various levels of that regulation. Of course, we will mention nonregulated weapons and makeshift weapons but they are not (yet) part of this discussion.
I do believe in the right and the responsibility of the people of our country to protect themselves from tyranny. As I have mentioned to Chris, don't underestimate the power of 100 million armed patriots. There is no requirement to disarm any police or dismiss any military force....both are silly ideas.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 21, 2011, 12:43:42 PM
The founders seemed to be pretty bright guys. Quite sure the understood the evolution of "arms" up to their era. Seems to me they would be able to forsee the future evolutions of "arms".
Our founders could project the development of arms out over 200 years? Really? The advent of electricity, computers, lasers, satellites, airplanes, rockets, nuclear power, advanced chemistry, genetic engineering, etc. More importantly they could foresee the "acceleration" of technological development? That tech would someday advance more in a decade than it had in thousands of years prior. That's quite a crystal ball. I wonder what their stock picks were? Oh yeah, first they had to predict the stock market. LOL.
Now back to my question, what might be the envisioned definition of "arms"?
NotNow, there's an eye-popping current (2010'ish) movie out called "Countdown to Zero" that you should watch if you haven't already. It is unparalleled in terms of the quality of the interview subjects and research that went into it, and I think you'd really like it. The point it makes is that it's not so hard to get ahold of nuclear weapons anymore, pretty much all the people you wouldn't want to have theat technology already do, and a lot of them are in the process of developing large-scale production and delivery systems as we speak. It's a scary but awesome documentary.
stjr,
As discussed earlier in the thread, ALL of technology has changed. Would we do away with freedom of speech because one man can address the entire country on TV? Would we limit the right to assemble because people can fly into Washington DC by the thousands?
The basic premise of natural human rights is a truth. That truth can not be changed by any evolution of technology.
I have seen it. Nuclear proliferation is a problem. But no individual has yet been able to buy a nuclear weapon. And some are trying very hard. The US and many other countries have programs in place to try to prevent such activity.
There are programs in unfriendly countries, N. Korea and Iran are the obvious ones, that are a threat. These are international problems that belong in another thread, and are not pertinant to this debate.
Let me say it again, StephenDare!. Nuclear weapons are NOT "fantastically simple" to make. While the theory is readily available, and the engineering is around, there are additional requirements to producing a device BESIDES the nuclear material itself. "A centrifuge" will do nothing for you. "A centrifuge" is only a small part of producing enriched Uranium. The centrifuge process is massive, complicated, and expensive. Ask Iran. The black market? No, there are no known valid quantities of this material available now or in the past.
Again, all of the nuclear talk is moot anyway. These issues are for another thread.
"Nuclear weapons" are not illegal. It is against the law to own certain parts of such weapons. It is against the law to own a "bomb" (defined differently by different jurisdictions). And yes, of course I support those laws.
I have addressed the laughable "disarming the police and dismissing the military" point.
I dunno NotNow, that team from M.I.T. made a working bomb design in a few hours from stuff you can buy from a hardware store and a surplus gun barrel. They walked into the capitol with it and dumped it on the table in the committee room. It's pretty darn easy when you look at it.
Their point in that congressional hearing was that it's difficult to make a military-grade weapon that is highly efficient, but then the problem is that it doesn't really have to highly efficient, even a crappy home-built contraption you or I can throw together could still level a good sized city. The only thing stopping anybody so far has been the relatively tight controls on enriched uranium, but more and more countries are gaining access to that all the time, and a lot of them don't keep as tight controls as we do on how the material is safeguarded.
The most shocking thing to me in Countdown to Zero was that one Russian guy who was in the middle of selling enriched uranium on the black market and got caught because he got arrested by accident with some of his friends transporting stolen car batteries along with the uranium. The only reason they caught him at all was because they were cracking down on stolen auto parts. LOL! It's not as hard as people think.
Yeah since you mention it Stephen, it seems like we'd be better served arguing for strictly construing the constitutional requirement that war can only be declared by Congress and that the President only serves to execute a war properly declared by the legislature. What ever happened to that little requirement? Every war since Korea, the President has pretty much plunged into without approval. Where did that one go off the rails?
Quote from: stjr on January 21, 2011, 12:58:24 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 21, 2011, 12:43:42 PM
The founders seemed to be pretty bright guys. Quite sure the understood the evolution of "arms" up to their era. Seems to me they would be able to forsee the future evolutions of "arms".
Our founders could project the development of arms out over 200 years? Really? The advent of electricity, computers, lasers, satellites, airplanes, rockets, nuclear power, advanced chemistry, genetic engineering, etc. More importantly they could foresee the "acceleration" of technological development? That tech would someday advance more in a decade than it had in thousands of years prior. That's quite a crystal ball. I wonder what their stock picks were? Oh yeah, first they had to predict the stock market. LOL.
Now back to my question, what might be the envisioned definition of "arms"?
You cannot theorize 200 years from now? Thats too bad stjr... most people can look at something like the history and development of something and make fairly accurate projections of future development. Stephen does it all the time with various scientific wonders or doomsday scenarios.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 21, 2011, 01:51:10 PM
Yeah since you mention it Stephen, it seems like we'd be better served arguing for strictly construing the constitutional requirement that war can only be declared by Congress and that the President only serves to execute a war properly declared by the legislature. What ever happened to that little requirement? Every war since Korea, the President has pretty much plunged into without approval. Where did that one go off the rails?
I would not disagree with you there Chris... though it is very doubtful this requirement would have prevent either of our current involvements...
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 01:14:45 PM
Let me say it again, StephenDare!. Nuclear weapons are NOT "fantastically simple" to make. While the theory is readily available, and the engineering is around, there are additional requirements to producing a device BESIDES the nuclear material itself. "A centrifuge" will do nothing for you. "A centrifuge" is only a small part of producing enriched Uranium. The centrifuge process is massive, complicated, and expensive. Ask Iran. The black market? No, there are no known valid quantities of this material available now or in the past.
Again, all of the nuclear talk is moot anyway. These issues are for another thread.
"Nuclear weapons" are not illegal. It is against the law to own certain parts of such weapons. It is against the law to own a "bomb" (defined differently by different jurisdictions). And yes, of course I support those laws.
I have addressed the laughable "disarming the police and dismissing the military" point.
Nuclear Weapons are indeed illegal for private ownership by any individual US citizen. Surprised you didnt know that.
Actually, its not that difficult at all. You simply have to create a mechanism capable of causing two masses of uranium 235 to collide at a high enough velocity that it causes one atom to create a chain reaction. There are a few easily obtained methods for causing this to happen.
Uranium is easily found in its natural state and centrifuges simply distill out the uranium to its heavier compounds. From these are drawn weapons grade uranium. It is time consuming, and produces relatively small amounts but not terribly complicated.
The problem isnt really the explosion its the delivery device, but, since you are now making the claim that it is impossible to purchase these materials, that pretty much amounts to an admission that your previous arguments about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq were just bullshit. Right?
Im sure Bridge Troll appreciates the old bus tire undershot on this argument as well, but I am more than happy to see you finally admit this.
You did not 'address' disarming the police or returning the military to its constitutionally intended structure of being a sheerly defensive force, called up by the Congress as needed.
I think that if you read Title 18, Part I, Chapter 39, sections 831 and 832, you will find that it is illegal to assist in building such a device, transport or possess certain materials, or possess a "radiological" weapon (note that a radiological weapon is different from a nuclear device). So, as I said earlier, it is illegal to possess certain parts of such a weapon. But you are scratching for traction in an argument that is moot in the debate, as I have pointed out several times.
I would argue against the efficiency or even the viability of the MIT device quoted. It has never been tested or even modeled. While I hesitate to argue against programs to reduce the proliferation of nuclear materials, I would point out that if it was easy the N. Koreans would be several billion richer and the Iranians would have already erased Tel Aviv.
The yellow cake uranium in Iraq was material obtained by the government of Iraq intended for processing into enriched uranium. I don't see why that is so hard for you to understand, but your politics apparently prevents clear thinking. Once again, your "assumptions" are misguided and...wrong.
I do have to concede to you the point on a standing army, however. The issue should be resolved by the government and in order to remain intellectually honest, I must stand with the founding fathers.
QuoteYou simply must link to these 200 year in the future predictions BT!
A few readings of Asimov, Clark, or countless others should do the trick... :) Again... Washington was a General. He served under the Brits prior to the revolution. He understood the evolution of weaponry and tactics. Seems rather obvious that a person such as that could envision future improved capabilities weapons including multiple shot, high rate of fire, firearms.
what federal statute makes it "illegal" to possess a nuclear weapon?
Yellow cake uranium must undergo complex and expensive processing before the material needed for a weapon is available. It also takes quite a bit of raw yellow cake to make that material. The money and resources for such operations are limited to governments because of cost and other considerations. Of course such weapons should be tightly controlled by the governments which created them. Your conception of producing such a weapon is not in line with reality.
These are silly questions, and simply divert from the point of the debate we were involved in. While it has been interesting watching you scratch for some point that you can hammer on, this discussion is simply not useful. If you want to continue discussing the possible production of such a weapon and it's proliferation, then I suggest a new thread. Otherwise, let's try to stay on point here.
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 03:20:32 PM
what federal statute makes it "illegal" to possess a nuclear weapon?
This one;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002131----000-.html
Obviously the government isn't going to grant you a license to produce or possess fissile material just because you'd like to have your own A-bomb in the garage, and it's illegal to use, transport, possess, etc., the material or means of production without a license, so that's it in a nutshell.
Although I realize it is a subtle point, the smarta$$ in me must point out that 2131 that you quoted refers to utilization and production facilities, as defined in 2132, not nuclear weapons. StephenDare!, you are a little closer with your Wikipedia quote. Simply possessing a nuclear weapon without evidence of transport or production would most likely result in prosecution under the possession of nuclear materials statutes. Actual "possession of a nuclear device" is not listed in the Federal statutes, and in fact is explicitly excluded under the Title 18, Section 113B description of WMD. Transport or production have their own penalties. So, at least on the Federal level, it is not "technically" against the law to possess a "nuclear weapon", but it is against the law to possess certain parts of it, as I pointed out in previous posts.
Again, while an interesting diversion, all of this is just an intellectual exercise and has no bearing on the original debate.
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 04:54:11 PM
Although I realize it is a subtle point, the smarta$$ in me must point out that 2131 that you quoted refers to utilization and production facilities, as defined in 2132, not nuclear weapons. StephenDare!, you are a little closer with your Wikipedia quote. Simply possessing a nuclear weapon without evidence of transport or production would most likely result in prosecution under the possession of nuclear materials statutes. Actual "possession of a nuclear device" is not listed in the Federal statutes, and in fact is explicitly excluded under the Title 18, Section 113B description of WMD. Transport or production have their own penalties. So, at least on the Federal level, it is not "technically" against the law to possess a "nuclear weapon", but it is against the law to possess certain parts of it, as I pointed out in previous posts.
Again, while an interesting diversion, all of this is just an intellectual exercise and has no bearing on the original debate.
NotNow, the word "utilization" means any use of fissile material at all. It means what I said it means.
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 03:34:40 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 21, 2011, 03:15:16 PM
QuoteYou simply must link to these 200 year in the future predictions BT!
A few readings of Asimov, Clark, or countless others should do the trick... :) Again... Washington was a General. He served under the Brits prior to the revolution. He understood the evolution of weaponry and tactics. Seems rather obvious that a person such as that could envision future improved capabilities weapons including multiple shot, high rate of fire, firearms.
I doubt that, actually. Even by the gilded age, the English thought that repeat fire mechanisms were unsporting and immoral at first blush. It hadn't occurred to them that something so monstrous was possible.
Of course, then it occurred to them that it would make colonization a damned site less labor intensive, but the first repeating firearms came as a bit of a shock.
I am sure all gunpowder firearms were once considered "unsporting". As a warrior... Washington would have seen repeating firearms coming. The tactics of the day were a form of repeating firepower. 30 or 40 years later after George died repeaters were a reality. Even you can forsee 30 or 40 years ahead...
This seems to be quite a way into the future...
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/E-11_blaster_rifle
Just because I am as hard headed as you two are:
§ 2132. Utilization and production facilities for industrial or commercial purposes
How Current is This? (a) Issuance of licenses
Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, or otherwise specifically authorized by law, any license hereafter issued for a utilization or production facility for industrial or commercial purposes shall be issued pursuant to section 2133 of this title.
(b) Facilities constructed or operated under section 2134 (b)
Any license hereafter issued for a utilization or production facility for industrial or commercial purposes, the construction or operation of which was licensed pursuant to section 2134 (b) of this title prior to enactment into law of this subsection, shall be issued under section 2134 (b) of this title.
(c) Cooperative Power Reactor Demonstration facilities
Any license for a utilization or production facility for industrial or commercial purposes constructed or operated under an arrangement with the Commission entered into under the Cooperative Power Reactor Demonstration Program shall, except as otherwise specifically required by applicable law, be issued under section 2134 (b) of this title.
______________________________________________________________________
This definition of "utilization and production facilities" is found in 2132. This statute refers to facilities, not weapons. My point, albeit a fine one, stands. There is no Federal statute that directly makes simple possession of a "nuclear weapon" illegal. Only the sensitive parts of it.
Just out of curiousity Chris, were the MIT students charged with producing, transporting, and possessing their version of a nuclear weapon?
And StephenDare!, "utilization" refers to a type of facility in this statute. And I have answered your questions on what laws I support numerous times in this thread, just read back.
You are both more than welcome to inquire with the US Attorney's Office as to which statute would apply. Of course no one has ever actually been charged in a case of possessing such a weapon.
And yes StephenDare!, we have proven what everyone knew at the start of this, that the nuclear weapon argument is a red herring when discussing second amendment issues.
On a more useful note, Chris, I thought that you said you were a concealed weapons permit holder. What is your daily carry weapon?
NotNow, your point doesn't stand, it is wholly illegal to own a nuclear weapon privately. We aren't talking about a "facility" you are adding that. The statute specifically uses the words "any" and "utilization" without stating "facility." You are adding that where it doesn't belong. The statute prohibits any use at all. Also, you appear to be intentionally ignoring the fact that the statute also specifically outlaws "possession" without a license. Are you going to redefine what it means to "possess" now too?
And regarding your question about whether the M.I.T. students were charged, they had been requested to perform that task by a congressional committee, and were therefore acting under congressional authority. Congress itself isn't subject to this restriction, and accordingly their actions were legal. If they'd just gotten together to do it for fun, that would have been another story.
StephenDare!, reread my reply #154. Clearly your harping on such a silly question can stop now?
Chris, reread 2132 a), it is posted at the top of this page. The statute is referring to "utilization or production facilities". This is a regulatory statute.
Kosher pickle? What the heck are you talking about?
Guys, I know that you are both desperate to be right all of the time but gee whiz!, how long do you want to drag this out?
Again Chris, what type of firearm do you carry? If you don't wish to reveal the information I understand, just say so.
????Evasion???? You can't seem to read english and I'm evading? I said " Of course such weapons should be tightly controlled by the governments which created them. " Is that really a difficult answer for you?
And you do realize now that the nuclear weapon argument in reference to the second amendment is a moot argument, don't you?
Your continued focus on this (meaningless) point would be an obvious diversion of the second discussion, except you and Chris seem to not want to accept the facts on the N weapons questions.
Chris,
The facilities are described throughout this regulatory chapter:
§ 2136. Classes of facilities
How Current is This? The Commission mayâ€"
(a) group the facilities licensed either under section 2133 or 2134 of this title into classes which may include either production or utilization facilities or both, upon the basis of the similarity of operating and technical characteristics of the facilities;
(b) define the various activities to be carried on at each such class of facility; and
(c) designate the amounts of special nuclear material available for use by each such facility.
________________________________________________________________________________
Again, Subchapter IX is a regulatory chapter clearly referring to licences for atomic energy facilities, and was not written in reference to weapons.
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 07:46:33 PM
So, to recap, you do support the laws which make nuclear weapons illegal for private citizens? Even if they independentaly create a hitherto undiscovered triggering mechanism to explode atomic materials?
I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. I do support the continued retention of nuclear weapons by the governments which created them. (How many times have I said that?) Are you completely missing my statements about the cost, difficulty, and time needed to produce a viable nuclear weapon? Not to mention testing and storage. These are VERY specialized, VERY expensive, VERY time consuming, VERY sensitive weapons WITH a shelf life. They are barely practical for nations, and are very impractical for individuals.
I'm not sure how to respond to your triggering statement, what do you mean?
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 07:49:27 PM
Chris,
The facilities are described throughout this regulatory chapter:
§ 2136. Classes of facilities
How Current is This? The Commission mayâ€"
(a) group the facilities licensed either under section 2133 or 2134 of this title into classes which may include either production or utilization facilities or both, upon the basis of the similarity of operating and technical characteristics of the facilities;
(b) define the various activities to be carried on at each such class of facility; and
(c) designate the amounts of special nuclear material available for use by each such facility.
________________________________________________________________________________
Again, Subchapter IX is a regulatory chapter clearly referring to licences for atomic energy facilities, and was not written in reference to weapons.
NotNow, you're not trained at statutory interpretation, you've actually quoted the exception provisions and not the body itself. The statute exempts certain facilities as provided by those sections, those are exceptions to the limitations, not general definitions. The statute is saying any use at all except for one of the types of authorized nuclear facilities or uses as described in those subsections, and when that use is operating with the proper federal licensure, is illegal.
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 07:54:57 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 07:46:33 PM
So, to recap, you do support the laws which make nuclear weapons illegal for private citizens? Even if they independentaly create a hitherto undiscovered triggering mechanism to explode atomic materials?
I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. I do support the continued retention of nuclear weapons by the governments which created them. (How many times have I said that?) Are you completely missing my statements about the cost, difficulty, and time needed to produce a viable nuclear weapon? Not to mention testing and storage. These are VERY specialized, VERY expensive, VERY time consuming, VERY sensitive weapons WITH a shelf life. They are barely practical for nations, and are very impractical for individuals.
I'm not sure how to respond to your triggering statement, what do you mean?
just wanting to have perfect understanding of your point of view. You seem to be hedging. Reading your statement, one could come to the conclusion that if a private citizen independently created a nuclear weapong that wasnt created by a government, then you might not have a problem with them posessing, selling, transporting or otherwise utilizing them.
You seem to be qualifying your support of the laws by reducing them to a question of ownership and liability.
So let me try asking the question again.
Do you support the laws making it illegal for regular citizens to own or use nuclear weapons?
I'll state it again. It is impossible for a private citizen to own such a weapon. Your question is faulty in its premise. I even pointed out that even if it was possible, no private citizen, including the Sultan of Brunei, could afford such a weapon. I also pointed out that it is a pointless weapon for a private citizen to own. I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 21, 2011, 08:04:32 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 07:49:27 PM
Chris,
The facilities are described throughout this regulatory chapter:
§ 2136. Classes of facilities
How Current is This? The Commission mayâ€"
(a) group the facilities licensed either under section 2133 or 2134 of this title into classes which may include either production or utilization facilities or both, upon the basis of the similarity of operating and technical characteristics of the facilities;
(b) define the various activities to be carried on at each such class of facility; and
(c) designate the amounts of special nuclear material available for use by each such facility.
________________________________________________________________________________
Again, Subchapter IX is a regulatory chapter clearly referring to licences for atomic energy facilities, and was not written in reference to weapons.
NotNow, you're not trained at statutory interpretation, you've actually quoted the exception provisions and not the body itself. The statute exempts certain facilities as provided by those sections, those are exceptions to the limitations, not general definitions. The statute is saying any use at all except for one of the types of authorized nuclear facilities or uses as described in those subsections, and when that use is operating with the proper federal licensure, is illegal.
Your kidding me, right? Not trained in statutory interpretation? My little sister can read this subchapter and understand it. What are you...two or three hours out of law school? Give me a break. You said "utilization" did not mean "utilization facilities" and I have shown you that is exactly what it means in the statute that YOU quoted. Read the entire subchapter. You are arguing, once again, in an area that you have no training or experience.
On a separate note, I suppose that you don't want to reveal what kind of weapon you carry? Do you have a CCL? Do you own a handgun?
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
Quote[]I'll state it again. It is impossible for a private citizen to own such a weapon. Your question is faulty in its premise. I even pointed out that even if it was possible, no private citizen, including the Sultan of Brunei, could afford such a weapon. I also pointed out that it is a pointless weapon for a private citizen to own. I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you.[/]
Do you support any laws making private nuclear weapons of any kind illegal for private citizens?
Yes or no?
Do you understand now that the nuclear weapon argument is moot when discussing the second amendment?
Yes or no?
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 08:34:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 07:54:57 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 07:46:33 PM
So, to recap, you do support the laws which make nuclear weapons illegal for private citizens? Even if they independentaly create a hitherto undiscovered triggering mechanism to explode atomic materials?
I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. I do support the continued retention of nuclear weapons by the governments which created them. (How many times have I said that?) Are you completely missing my statements about the cost, difficulty, and time needed to produce a viable nuclear weapon? Not to mention testing and storage. These are VERY specialized, VERY expensive, VERY time consuming, VERY sensitive weapons WITH a shelf life. They are barely practical for nations, and are very impractical for individuals.
I'm not sure how to respond to your triggering statement, what do you mean?
just wanting to have perfect understanding of your point of view. You seem to be hedging. Reading your statement, one could come to the conclusion that if a private citizen independently created a nuclear weapong that wasnt created by a government, then you might not have a problem with them posessing, selling, transporting or otherwise utilizing them.
You seem to be qualifying your support of the laws by reducing them to a question of ownership and liability.
So let me try asking the question again.
Do you support the laws making it illegal for regular citizens to own or use nuclear weapons?
I'll state it again. It is impossible for a private citizen to own such a weapon. Your question is faulty in its premise. I even pointed out that even if it was possible, no private citizen, including the Sultan of Brunei, could afford such a weapon. I also pointed out that it is a pointless weapon for a private citizen to own. I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you.
The same M.I.T group who at congressional request built a working bomb out of a surplus gun barrel and everyday items from a hardware store ran the calculations, and it would a little under $6mm to have a functional homebuilt weapon, including the estimated price of the U235 based on the value of different black market seizures in the past several years. There is indeed a black market in this stuff, the only problem for your politics is that it had nothing at all to do with Saddam Hussein, lol. I hate to keep referencing the same movie, but Countdown to Zero totally debunked that line of thinking, and they interviewed everyone from Gorbachev to Robert McNamara, who all agree it's not out of the realm of private people to obtain at all. $6mm is what it would take.
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 08:40:02 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 21, 2011, 08:04:32 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 07:49:27 PM
Chris,
The facilities are described throughout this regulatory chapter:
§ 2136. Classes of facilities
How Current is This? The Commission mayâ€"
(a) group the facilities licensed either under section 2133 or 2134 of this title into classes which may include either production or utilization facilities or both, upon the basis of the similarity of operating and technical characteristics of the facilities;
(b) define the various activities to be carried on at each such class of facility; and
(c) designate the amounts of special nuclear material available for use by each such facility.
________________________________________________________________________________
Again, Subchapter IX is a regulatory chapter clearly referring to licences for atomic energy facilities, and was not written in reference to weapons.
NotNow, you're not trained at statutory interpretation, you've actually quoted the exception provisions and not the body itself. The statute exempts certain facilities as provided by those sections, those are exceptions to the limitations, not general definitions. The statute is saying any use at all except for one of the types of authorized nuclear facilities or uses as described in those subsections, and when that use is operating with the proper federal licensure, is illegal.
Your kidding me, right? Not trained in statutory interpretation? My little sister can read this subchapter and understand it. What are you...two or three hours out of law school? Give me a break. You said "utilization" did not mean "utilization facilities" and I have shown you that is exactly what it means in the statute that YOU quoted. Read the entire subchapter. You are arguing, once again, in an area that you have no training or experience.
On a separate note, I suppose that you don't want to reveal what kind of weapon you carry? Do you have a CCL? Do you own a handgun?
NotNow, come on, you aren't this dumb, you know as well as I do those subsections were the exceptions about what IS legal if it has proper licensure. Everything BUT those exceptions is illegal, up to and including mere possession, as the statute clearly states. Or are you going to redefine "possession" as well?
Why don't you quit dragging your feet to avoid the inexorable slide towards the unavoidable slippery slope that your argument can't avoid and just acknowledge that you clearly support limitations on the private ownership of military-grade weapons, for obvious reasons?
And FWIW, I know where you're going with your questions about what firearms I own, and I'll cut to the chase, I don't want to lose my right to own or carry. But I don't own any assault weapons, and every time one of these things happens like Arizona or Columbine, you have to admit it generally involves them. I have mixed feelings about all this, and don't support a firearms ban. But I also find the logic behind the second amendment strict constructionists' arguments kind of funny, because if the original intent and plain meaning are all that matters, then we'd logically be entitled to own anything the government owns, since ensuring the ability for resistance against our own government should it become tyrannical was after all the entire point in the first place. Following that logic, I want my personal nuclear bomb and my own battleship, maybe a couple missiles too. Lol!
Try humoring me. Answer my questions. Yours is based on a false premise. The government has already made the essential portions of such a weapon illegal ( I would be interested, Chris, in seeing the statute that allows Congress to commission the building of a viable nuclear weapon). And, contrary to what the movie told you, it is actually more difficult than was presented to build a viable weapon. You might want to check on a few of your facts with someone who does not have a political point to make or a movie to sell. You also might want to check on the ACTUAL records of smuggling captures and how much material has been seized.
I see that you are throwing out your extensive legal experience as well. Are you also claiming that Subchapter IX 2131 "utilization or production facilities" does not refer to facilities? I can assure both of you that you are way off base on this one.
Well NotNow, on one hand I've got Mikhail Gorbachev, Robert McNamara, Valerie Plame, and a host of policemen from former soviet bloc countries and intelligence officers, plus jailhouse interviews with a couple actual uranium smugglers, all telling me on that documentary how easy it is to get ahold of, and on the other hand I've got you telling me how they're apparently all wrong. Who would you believe?
And about the statute, you're wrong, I've explained it three times already. Those subsections are the types of facilities which are legal, if properly licensed. Those aren't general definitions. Every other act of possessing, transporting, using, etc., the material outside of one of the enumerated licensed uses in those subsections, which would include any private individual owning enriched uranium, is plainly illegal under that statute. I hope you don't have a hernia straining so hard to stretch this logic.
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 09:05:35 PM
I don't have anything to sell, Ive just been trying for 10 hours to get a simple answer from you on a simple subject.
Do you believe that these weapons should be illegal for normal citizens to posess?
How hard is that to answer?
So far youve told me how much you think they cost, provided a list of people that you don't think can afford them, argued that they arent really illegal, intimated that government should tightly monitor them (apparently since they created them) and a host of other sidetracks, but you havent answered the important one.
Do you think that it should be a crime for regular people to posess a nuclear warhead for personal use?
Lol he's doing everything possible to avoid this slippery slope, which is inherent to his own argument, it's not even us doing it. Lol, I think he's running out of distractions though.
So NotNow, why not answer the question? Would you have a problem with military-grade weapons, including nuclear bombs, being legal for private people to own? Simple question, really.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 21, 2011, 08:57:10 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 08:40:02 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 21, 2011, 08:04:32 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 07:49:27 PM
Chris,
The facilities are described throughout this regulatory chapter:
§ 2136. Classes of facilities
How Current is This? The Commission mayâ€"
(a) group the facilities licensed either under section 2133 or 2134 of this title into classes which may include either production or utilization facilities or both, upon the basis of the similarity of operating and technical characteristics of the facilities;
(b) define the various activities to be carried on at each such class of facility; and
(c) designate the amounts of special nuclear material available for use by each such facility.
________________________________________________________________________________
Again, Subchapter IX is a regulatory chapter clearly referring to licences for atomic energy facilities, and was not written in reference to weapons.
NotNow, you're not trained at statutory interpretation, you've actually quoted the exception provisions and not the body itself. The statute exempts certain facilities as provided by those sections, those are exceptions to the limitations, not general definitions. The statute is saying any use at all except for one of the types of authorized nuclear facilities or uses as described in those subsections, and when that use is operating with the proper federal licensure, is illegal.
Your kidding me, right? Not trained in statutory interpretation? My little sister can read this subchapter and understand it. What are you...two or three hours out of law school? Give me a break. You said "utilization" did not mean "utilization facilities" and I have shown you that is exactly what it means in the statute that YOU quoted. Read the entire subchapter. You are arguing, once again, in an area that you have no training or experience.
On a separate note, I suppose that you don't want to reveal what kind of weapon you carry? Do you have a CCL? Do you own a handgun?
NotNow, come on, you aren't this dumb, you know as well as I do those subsections were the exceptions about what IS legal if it has proper licensure. Everything BUT those exceptions is illegal, up to and including mere possession, as the statute clearly states. Or are you going to redefine "possession" as well?
Why don't you quit dragging your feet to avoid the inexorable slide towards the unavoidable slippery slope that your argument can't avoid and just acknowledge that you clearly support limitations on the private ownership of military-grade weapons, for obvious reasons?
And FWIW, I know where you're going with your questions about what firearms I own, and I'll cut to the chase, I don't want to lose my right to own or carry. But I don't own any assault weapons, and every time one of these things happens like Arizona or Columbine, you have to admit it generally involves them. I have mixed feelings about all this, and don't support a firearms ban. But I also find the logic behind the second amendment strict constructionists' arguments kind of funny, because if the original intent and plain meaning are all that matters, then we'd logically be entitled to own anything the government owns, since ensuring the ability for resistance against our own government should it become tyrannical was after all the entire point in the first place. Following that logic, I want my personal nuclear bomb and my own battleship, maybe a couple missiles too. Lol!
Sigh. You have learned nothing from all of this debate. Subchapter IX REALLY is about licensing legal atomic energy operations and has nothing to do with weapons. Call the FBI, the NRC, the DOE, somebody may be able to explain it to you. I guess I'm just too "dumb".
It is difficult to argue "military grade" weapons with you guys. What does that mean? What do you mean when you say "assault weapon"? Neither of those terms is defined. The most recent shooting in AZ was using a semi automatic handgun. The Columbine shooters used two shotguns, a nine mm semi auto carbine and a nine mm semi auto pistol. Which of these were "military grade" or "assault weapons"?
I have explained the nuclear weapon thing till I am blue in the face. Neither of you appear to appreciate what is really involved in building such a weapon. I confidently take such weapons off the table when we are talking about private citizens. I know to do this because of my training, education, and experience.
As for the original intent of the 2nd, yes, one of the intents was to arm the people against tyranny. The Japanese knew this, and even with all of their advanced weaponry Yamamoto is famously quoted as saying that occupying the mainland US would be impossible because a rifleman would be behind every rock. He recognized the power of an armed populace, although your and StephenDare! don't appear to understand the vastness of the numbers. But resisting tyrant governments is not the only intent of the 2nd. As the vast majority of Americans have stated over and over again.
ROFL, this is seriously getting comical...
Simple question NotNow: Do you think it should be legal for private individuals to have personal nuclear bombs or not?
You guys are laughable. I have stated my position clearly. I support the current laws. The subject is actually much more complicated than either of you apparently realize. Enjoy yourselves. You can have a dinner party in Riverside and laugh about this thread.
Or you might want to educate yourself on such a serious subject.
You really don't understand the difference between generating some neutrons and building a nuclear weapon, do you?
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 09:44:54 PM
You guys are laughable. I have stated my position clearly. I support the current laws. The subject is actually much more complicated than either of you apparently realize. Enjoy yourselves. You can have a dinner party in Riverside and laugh about this thread.
Or you might want to educate yourself on such a serious subject.
Lol, was that really so hard?
So why do you support it being illegal to own a nuclear bomb? For what basic reasons do you support that?
Do you believe that it is possible for a private individual to build or buy a nuclear weapon?
The current laws make it illegal to possess fissile material. I thought that you would realize that by now. Are you a working lawyer? What is your area of expertise?
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 09:51:10 PM
Do you believe that it is possible for a private individual to build or buy a nuclear weapon?
Build one, yes. It's absolutely possible.
Buy an already complete working weapon? Debatable, but probably not at the moment. That can easily change.
And you are basing this judgment on what? A movie? Do either of you have any kind of experience or training in nuclear physics or nuclear weapons?
Are you a working lawyer? Do you specialize? (That's for Chris, I'm familiar with StephenDare!'s legal background.) :)
As I have made clear to both of you, only parts of nuclear weapons are illegal to possess. Simple possession of fissle material is dangerous without proper training in handling and storage. Even in nature, fission in naturally occuring urainium has occurred, but you know that, don't you?
I'm waiting for both of you to define "military grade" weapons and "assault weapons". You said it, define it.
Lol, maybe you want to explain how one could have a functional nuclear weapon without fissile material?
You're really stretching here, NotNow. You've already stated you agree that nuclear bombs should be illegal for private use, what's your reasoning behind that? Is it the potential harm to others, perhaps?
I stated that I support the current laws. Fissile material is inherently dangerous. You are aware of the dangers of it, aren't you? You just can't or won't answer my questions though, will you?
Define "military grade" weapons and "assault weapons". These are your terms. Tell us what you think is too dangerous for an American citizen to own.
Are you a working lawyer? Still looking?
StephenDare!? Have you something to say on this?
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 10:19:50 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 10:17:39 PM
I stated that I support the current laws. Fissile material is inherently dangerous. You are aware of the dangers of it, aren't you? You just can't or won't answer my questions though, will you?
Define "military grade" weapons and "assault weapons". These are your terms. Tell us what you think is too dangerous for an American citizen to own.
Are you a working lawyer? Still looking?
StephenDare!? Have you something to say on this?
Im not sure I have an opinion. I support laws illegalizing wmds for citizens.
I am interested in why you also support them.
Are you at liberty to explain your reasons?
So you have no problem with semi auto pistols and rifles or high capacity magazines. And no opinion on private ownership of fully automatic weapons, or crew served weapons. Good. Thanks.
Count me in for lunch, I'm not huge on justifying my personal life on message boards, but will happily debate anything in person. I have never asked NotNow what his duty assignment is or what agency or department within the agency he works for. I know he's a cop, but I'd never make it any more personal than that, because it's not relevant. NotNow just asks these questions in order to imply that whoever disagrees with him is unqualified or unentitled to an opinion, which is silly and distracts from the real issue. I normally take the bait, though it never turns out well for him. You have to wonder why he always wants another bite at this apple when all his previous bites have ended disastrously. But I have avoided taking this bait tonight and will continue avoiding it, as it is nothing more than a distraction strategy. If NotNow is that interested in my personal life, he'd ask at some other time besides the middle of a contentious debate.
So back to the point, NotNow: You've stated you agree that nuclear bombs should be illegal for individuals, is that because of the potential for mass harm to others?
Firearms are often elegant Stephen, even though it's just a little .22 plinker you ought to check out a Mark III sometime, it's a truly elegant design for a handgun, based on a Luger. Ditto with a P220 .45, just an elegant object to hold. Rifles and antique firearms are often exceptionally beautiful, with hand carved stocks and finely detailed inlays. Honestly there is big component of art to it.
My position on all of this is simple, I also think it should remain legal to own firearms, and would never suggest otherwise. But I am conflicted on the assault weapons issue. These mass killings always seem to involve them, and I know of no legitimate need for private ownership outside of "just because I can."
Look at the hand engraving on this winchester as an example;
(http://www.styleofeye.com/images/decorated-winchester-rifle1.jpg)
Or this middle eastern tribal hunting rifle;
(http://i994.photobucket.com/albums/af61/Musafira/gun5-1.jpg)
I guess to each their own, but I find a lot of elegance in these designs. Or you mean the act of shooting someone is inelegant? I'd agree with that, I've never shot anybody and doubt I'll ever have to.
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 10:37:39 PM
QuoteSo you have no problem with semi auto pistols and rifles or high capacity magazines. And no opinion on private ownership of fully automatic weapons, or crew served weapons. Good. Thanks.
I really don't.
I believe Americans have the right to be armed, for many of the same reasons that you do. As I believe that I stated when we first opened up the conversation.
I do not personally carry a gun. They literally make my flesh crawl to be in the same presence with them. I have been at gunpoint a number of times in my life, and do not like them.
I have never fired a gun, nor do I plan on learning how to do so. They are an inelegant and cold blooded weapon in my opinion. However, like cigarette smoke, pot, too much jesus, too little education or cheap vodka, I strongly believe that people have the right and more importantly the privilege to indulge and carry them if they like.
I havent made up my mind about rapid fire automatic weapons. I have been holding out to decide if there really is a circumstance where the Citizen really has a need for these.
So why do you support the illegalization of WMDs?
Well, thanks for the burst of honesty. I support the restriction of fissile material to the government.
As a law enforcement officer, fully support the laws as currently written.
My personal opinion is that the tragic occurrences such as Columbine and Tucson are not the result of any gun or weapon problem, but are rooted in other problems in our American society. I believe we should quit wasting time with this debate and move on to those other problems.
I trust the American public and I believe in freedom. I believe that the founding fathers had more brains in their pinkies than our current crop of DC politicians, and I have studied and believe in the principles that they founded this country on. In a NotNow world the Federal government would be limited to its clearly enumerated responsibilities. A NotNow world would be MUCH less regulated, and yes, citizens would be welcome to defend themselves and denounce any person or government they wanted. I am not advocating the return of any of the evils of the past such as slavery or child labor, and I am not condemning any past generation. I am for returning to the freedom envisioned by the founders of this nation.
I think we should encourage the citizen soldier. And issue government weapons to those that serve. I advocate a return to common sense and common vision.
Assault weapon? What does that mean?
I have to say, I think of firearms as tools and have no interest in antiques, or "collections". I own a few "hunting" arms. But what I own is for personal defensive carry or offensive long guns. And trust me StephenDare!, there are LOTS of situations where you want all of the gun you can carry.
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 11:09:45 PM
So why do you support the illegalization of WMDs?
What does that mean?
What is an "assault weapon"?
When I say that I mean an auto or semiauto that by design or modification holds more rounds than what would ever be reasonably necessary in any given situation outside of a mass-killing.
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 11:11:55 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 11:09:45 PM
So why do you support the illegalization of WMDs?
What does that mean?
StephenDare!, there are enough chemicals in your house to kill tens or more of people in minutes. An automoble can be a WMD in just five minutes using nothing but the vehicle and what it carries. What you guys are not getting is that the problem is NOT the weapon, a weapon is easy. The problem is the person who wants to kill, either singly or in mass. THAT is where your concern should lie.
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 11:15:02 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 11:12:30 PM
What is an "assault weapon"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
QuoteAssault weapon is a non-technical term referring to any of a broad category of firearms with certain features, including some semiautomatic rifles, some pistols, and some shotguns. There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[1]
Very generally speaking, a semi-automatic firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only once each time the trigger is pulled.
Which was the joke of the 1994 law. A semi auto weapon is a semi auto weapon, regardless of a "grip". Almost all semi auto pistols have a detachable magazine, as do many sporting arms. A folding stock and a flash suppressor never hurt anyone. The truth is that there is absoluly no difference between an AR-15, which has a pistol grip and flash suppressor and looks exactly like a military M16, and a mini-14, which has neither the pistol grip or suppressor and "looks" like a sporter but fires exactly the same bullet in exactly the same way as the AR-15. There is no logical basis for such a distinction.
Well NotNow, these nut bags could decide to blow up a kitchen with chemicals or run someone over with a car, but they don't, they always walk into a public meeting or a public school and shoot the place to hell. That is the real, not hypothetical, M.O. Or is your point just that if it weren't done this way, they'd find another way? Wouldn't it at least be more difficult if regulations on high capacity magazines were stricter? What other purpose does someone need that for?
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 11:18:11 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 11:16:01 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 11:11:55 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 11:09:45 PM
So why do you support the illegalization of WMDs?
What does that mean?
StephenDare!, there are enough chemicals in your house to kill tens or more of people in minutes. An automoble can be a WMD in just five minutes using nothing but the vehicle and what it carries. What you guys are not getting is that the problem is NOT the weapon, a weapon is easy. The problem is the person who wants to kill, either singly or in mass. THAT is where your concern should lie.
I assume you are also against using those household chemicals to make bombs, right?
And would gladly arrest anyone you caught making a tide bomb or a fertilizer bomb?
Im just asking you why you support laws making personal nuclear weapons illegal.
Yes, of course. I support the current laws, remember? You can read back on the nuclear weapon, I'm tired of repeating myself.
I thought you wanted to be honest, but you like games too much. This is a subject that you are not familiar with, and is too important to play word games with.
Have a good night.
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 11:21:42 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 11:15:02 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 11:12:30 PM
What is an "assault weapon"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
QuoteAssault weapon is a non-technical term referring to any of a broad category of firearms with certain features, including some semiautomatic rifles, some pistols, and some shotguns. There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[1]
Very generally speaking, a semi-automatic firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only once each time the trigger is pulled.
Which was the joke of the 1994 law. A semi auto weapon is a semi auto weapon, regardless of a "grip". Almost all semi auto pistols have a detachable magazine, as do many sporting arms. A folding stock and a flash suppressor never hurt anyone. The truth is that there is absoluly no difference between an AR-15, which has a pistol grip and flash suppressor and looks exactly like a military M16, and a mini-14, which has neither the pistol grip or suppressor and "looks" like a sporter but fires exactly the same bullet in exactly the same way as the AR-15. There is no logical basis for such a distinction.
Wasn't the original intent to target fully automatic weapons, and those that could easily be converted back?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 21, 2011, 11:21:53 PM
Well NotNow, these nut bags could decide to blow up a kitchen with chemicals or run someone over with a car, but they don't, they always walk into a public meeting or a public school and shoot the place to hell. That is the real, not hypothetical, M.O. Or is your point just that if it weren't done this way, they'd find another way? Wouldn't it at least be more difficult if regulations on high capacity magazines were stricter? What other purpose does someone need that for?
No, they don't always walk in and shoot the place up. Many weapons are used in such crimes. Autos, bombs, knives, hammers. The point, once again, is that we should focus on what drives the killer, not the tool.
I have to get up in the morning, have a good night.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 21, 2011, 11:27:13 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 11:21:42 PM
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2011, 11:15:02 PM
Quote from: NotNow on January 21, 2011, 11:12:30 PM
What is an "assault weapon"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
QuoteAssault weapon is a non-technical term referring to any of a broad category of firearms with certain features, including some semiautomatic rifles, some pistols, and some shotguns. There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[1]
Very generally speaking, a semi-automatic firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only once each time the trigger is pulled.
Which was the joke of the 1994 law. A semi auto weapon is a semi auto weapon, regardless of a "grip". Almost all semi auto pistols have a detachable magazine, as do many sporting arms. A folding stock and a flash suppressor never hurt anyone. The truth is that there is absoluly no difference between an AR-15, which has a pistol grip and flash suppressor and looks exactly like a military M16, and a mini-14, which has neither the pistol grip or suppressor and "looks" like a sporter but fires exactly the same bullet in exactly the same way as the AR-15. There is no logical basis for such a distinction.
Wasn't the original intent to target fully automatic weapons, and those that could easily be converted back?
Any semi auto can be converted to auto. It has nothing to do with the magazine, the grip, the stock, or any flash suppressor. Your P220 and Mk III can be converted to fully auto easily.
Yeah I know there has been a proliferation of conversion kits, but there's a difference between a full auto that accepts a 100 round drum and one using a normal 8 or 10 round clip, no? I mean, just comparing the destructive potential, one's clearly more dangerous than the other, no? I thought that was the intent behind that 1994 law, it was going after the high-capacity full autos. In any event, that law was a compromise that pleased nobody and failed at everything, I'm not defending it at all, I was in my early teens and don't remember much about it besides for my Dad complaining about it and running out to buy a full auto Uzi before it went into effect.
Stephen, Don't you think the wording of the second amendment limits the kinds of weapons that are legal for civilians to those that can be "borne"? That is only those that can be carried. ;)
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 22, 2011, 10:35:59 AM
Stephen, Don't you think the wording of the second amendment limits the kinds of weapons that are legal for civilians to those that can be "borne"? That is only those that can be carried. ;)
The reason they chose that word was not to limit the size of weapons, it was to cover both possession and use/carry. They foresaw that being legal to own something and legal to use it were two different things, and that word covers both ownership and use so they chose that. They didn't anticipate whether you can "bear" a B-52 or not, because that wasn't foreseeable, all of the arms at that time, which were basically just pistols, rifles, and cannons, could all be "borne" by men. Given that fact, the word itself wasn't meant to limit size, since there was nothing that couldn't be "borne" at that time, the intent seems to have been to cover both ownership and use. Self-propelled weapons, like tanks, planes, helicopters, etc., that challenge that word use didn't exist then.
I was making a pretty lame joke, Stephen & Chris.
However, at the time of the framers, civilians could privately own military weapons like cannons as well as pistols and muskets.
I find the limits on automatic weapons in civilian hands a reasonable limit as well as the limit on the size of magazines. They seemed to have worked pretty well where an outright ban on handguns would never work.
I also do not find the arguments that the second amendment is meaningless now because the government has fighter planes and nuclear weapons so civilians would always be beaten. As we have found in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, an Army cannot control a population.
The Hungarians even had to call in the Red Army to put down a revolution even thought the Hungarian population was basically unarmed.
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 22, 2011, 10:56:28 AM
I also do not find the arguments that the second amendment is meaningless now because the government has fighter planes and nuclear weapons so civilians would always be beaten. As we have found in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, an Army cannot control a population.
So, if our population found itself in armed conflict with our government, we could expect to prevail? Not without outside help as in Viet Nam where the Soviets armed and trained the VC, or in Afganistan, where our CIA with the influx of billions of U.S. dollars armed and trained their fighting population against the Soviets.
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 22, 2011, 10:56:28 AM
I was making a pretty lame joke, Stephen & Chris.
However, at the time of the framers, civilians could privately own military weapons like cannons as well as pistols and muskets.
I find the limits on automatic weapons in civilian hands a reasonable limit as well as the limit on the size of magazines. They seemed to have worked pretty well where an outright ban on handguns would never work.
I also do not find the arguments that the second amendment is meaningless now because the government has fighter planes and nuclear weapons so civilians would always be beaten. As we have found in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, an Army cannot control a population.
The Hungarians even had to call in the Red Army to put down a revolution even thought the Hungarian population was basically unarmed.
I get it now, lol, sorry about that. When you get into these back and forths with NotNow you have to be so tediously literal with your interpretation of every letter that sometimes you have blinders on, otherwise if there's any room at all he'll try and wriggle out of it. I was in NotNow discussion mode and actually missed it completely.
Yeah, I'm tedious. :D
Ralph, We wouldn't need outside help because so many of us are armed. They might be able to kill a lot of us, but not subjugate us. THAT is the point of the Second Amendment.
The last time the Federal Gov't forced its will on a population in this country, they actually used local units of the National Guard (successor to the "well regulated militia) and the local population didn't resist with armed force and the Guard soldiers obeyed their orders.
There are other reasons for being armed. In 1923 white mobs killed and drove away most of the inhabitants of Rosewood, Florida and Ocone, Florida. Local law enforcement figures were actually involved. At the time it was illegal for black people to own guns without permission of the sheriff. Very few were given permission. If most of the population of these towns had been armed, do you think these massacres would have occurred?