sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

When turbos are outlawed, only outlaws will have turbos.

Bookstores to gun stores? When I can download a dozen firearms onto my Kindle in an afternoon I'll be convinced that is a useful metric.



Since the idea of compromising on gun rights was brought up, I'm actually ready to discuss some compromises. The first compromise I would like to discuss is opening up the sale of fully automatic firearms to the citizenry without the Federal Class 3 license. The second compromise I wish to discuss would be nationwide reciprocity of concealed weapons permits. The third compromise I wish to discuss is removing the limitations on buying and selling firearms across state lines. The fourth compromise we should discuss is elimination of the counterproductive and highly dangerous "gun free zones" since only the law abiding honor them.

Let's compromise!

foxyroadster

iTrader: (3)

Lets not forget Undetectable Firearms Act, which surprisingly the NRA and various gun orgs was very quiet about.

EO2K

iTrader: (37)

For those of you who are not firearms people, let me walk you through something real quick...



This is a 1874 Sharps Cavalry Carbine. It has the distinction of being the first metallic cartridge rifle to be adopted for standard service by the US Army. It has no magazine and will fire 8–10 shots per minute. The above is probably chambered in .45-70. This would give it a muzzle velocity of 1,200 ft/s and an effective range of 500 yards.




This fine specimen is the known as the United States Rifle, Caliber .30-06, Model 1903 or the M1903 Springfield Rifle. Its a bolt action rifle with an internal magazine that loads via an external stripper clip. While it is a blatant rip-off of the Mauser Model 93 (to the point where the US Government was ordered to pay MauserWerk something like $3,000,000 due to patent infringement) it is a fine rifle in its own right. After serving in both WW1 and WW2 it continued to be a part of the US Army and Marine Corps armories as a precision rifle platform for designated marksmen and snipers up until it was replaced sometime in the mid 80's. Quoted muzzle velocity is 2,800 ft/s and "effective range" is listed at 1,000 yards, though the wikipedia claims 5,500 yd as a "maximum range."




The proper name for this rifle is the Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 but it is commonly known as the M1 Garand. This was the first semi-automatic rifle to be adopted by any world power as a standard issue infantry rifle. Gen. George S Patton is famously quoted as having referred to the M1 Garand as "the greatest battle implement ever devised." It holds 8 rounds of .30-06 Springfield and has a rate of fire of approximately 40−50 rounds/min. Muzzle velocity is quoted as something like 2,800 ft/s and effective range is over 500 yards. I can tell you first hand that its a lot farther than that...




This handsome devil is known as the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield No 1 Mk III* as was the standard issue rifle for all branches of the British Armed Forces from its introduction in 1907 and used in limited roles up until the mid 80's, much like the US M1903 Springfield. It's 10 round detachable box magazine is chambered in .303 British and is quoted as having 2,441 ft/s muzzle velocity and claims as to rate of fire can vary. Pre WW1 British soldiers were expected to be able to perform "The Mad Minute" with this rifle. The "Mad Minute" consists of firing a minimum of 15 rounds into a 12" target @ 300 yards in less than one minute. It's one of the smoothest bolt action rifles I've ever handled

Every one of these rifles was designed and manufactured for one purpose: to kill people as efficiently and effectively as possible.

I personally own one of each of the above listed firearms.

Now, here is one of my current projects:

I am in the process of building an AR-15 variant of the M16-A4


(Note: This is not my rifle, its from the internet)

Due to a combination of Federal an State Law, I am unable to own either the full auto or select fire variants of the M16, so I must build my rifle on the civilian version of that platform known as the AR-15. Because I live in California, I will be limited to a 10 round magazine that I cannot remove from the rifle without using a tool. I also cannot purchase a genuine COLT AR-15 lower receiver as California has chosen to ban that particular brand. I am also prohibited from owning certain accessories that attach to the rifle for reasons that I don't fully understand.

To follow this up like I did above...
This AR-15 rifle is chambered in 5.56x45 NATO. It holds 10 rounds in a fixed magazine that cannot be removed without a tool. The 5.56 has a listed muzzle velocity of 3,110 ft/s and an effective range of approximately 400 meters. Its theoretical rate of fire is somewhere around 800 rounds per minute however removal and reinstallation of the 10 round magazine will effectively cut this to 30-40 rounds per minute.


So... what exactly is the difference? Why is one of these rifles that much more dangerous than the rest? Why am I not allowed to own one, but the rest are fine?



I would personally consider the M1 Garand a far more lethal firearm than the AR-15, even if I had access to 20-30 round magazines for the AR, yet no one seems to worry about the Garand. There were over 6,250,000 (That's SIX MILLION) Garands produced and you can STILL buy one (indirectly) from US Govt. stockpiles THROUGH THE MAIL via organizations like the Civilian Marksmanship Program for as little as $500-600, where as an AR-15 will cost you upwards of $1,000 in the current market.

The AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" it just happens to look like one. The M1 Garand is more of an "assault weapon" than the AR-15 will ever be.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

That's quite correct.

I realize that it is inevitable that any discussion of the politics surrounding certain issues will tend to devolve into a debate over the issue itself. And to some extent, I'm able to forgive this tendency, as it is so firmly ingrained the collective psyche as to be nearly axiomatic. But this does not constitute evidence that there is no merit at all in attempting to dissect the underpinnings of such arguments, if for no other reason than to gain a better appreciation of the human psychology at play.

In this case, an undeniable trend exists in the direction of "the government* is conspiring to deprive us of our liberties," and it's rather interesting to examine the philosophy of entitlement which leads to such generous interpretations of the nature of said liberties, and the increasingly hysterical and disjointed arguments from which are spawned.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

So, what does "arbitrary" mean in this context?

Most laws are arbitrary. Why is the speed limit 65 MPH instead of 67? Why am I allowed to marry my first-cousin in Alabama, but only my second-cousin in Mississippi? Why am I allowed to keep a maximum of ten chickens in my backyard in Chapel Hill, NC, instead of nine or eleven? Why is the statute of limitations on medical malpractice claims in the state of New York 30 months? Why is the possession of two ounces of marijuana a felony in Vermont, but not 1.999999 ounces (and why doesn't this statue take into account variations in the earth's gravity due to elevation?)


If the mere fact that a certain law seems to be arbitrary to some degree is sufficient justification for you to feel threatened by it, then you have my sympathy, but not my respect.



The extent to which this right exists is debatable, and best left to a separate thread which I've been meaning to have for quite a while now. (I keep composing mental notes for it, but I never quite find the time to actually write it all down...)


That said, I don't think anyone is arguing against the notion that, wherein any deprivation or limitation of liberty is concerned, the burden of proof is incumbent upon those who would create such limitations. This is one of the primary functions of the congress, as outlined in Article 1.


In modern times, in fact, the US Supreme Court has tended to take a very anti-legislative, anti-police, pro-constitution stance when reviewing firearm-related appeals. For instance, in Bailey v. United States (1995), the court ruled against "enhanced sentences" for drug dealers who were pinched with both guns and drugs at the same time, provided that the guns were merely "in possession" (eg: in the locked trunk of a car, in a closet at home), and were not actively employed during the actual commission of drug trafficking.

Another good case is Staples v. United States (1994), where the court overturned a conviction under the National Firearms Act, deciding that it was necessary to prove that a defendant had full knowledge that a certain firearm was prohibited under that act in order to be convicted of possessing it. This case is especially fascinating, as it is a reversal of the classical holding Ignorantia juris non excusat, "Ignorance of the law excuses no one."


Taken collectively, these and other recent opinions form a strong basis to dispel the increasingly antiquated notion that the Federal government is moving in the direction of increased deprivation of liberty for its own sake. I would posit that those who argue that the US is devolving into a Police State would be well to invest some time in familiarizing themselves with present-day case law.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

And here is one of the core elements from which all controversy over firearms legislation is derived.

I think we can all agree that, to some extent or another, an overwhelming majority of US citizens believe that one of the foundational responsibilities of any government is to protect the physical security of its citizens. This is even described in the preamble to the US Constitution, to "insure domestic Tranquility, (...), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

This expectation comes to the surface any time that a widespread or well-publicized tragedy occurs. In the case of a natural disaster with major loss of life and property, we typically expect to see news footage of wet, homeless people asking "where da gubment at?"

It can also be seen whenever any moderate-scale violent crime is committed, such as a mass shooting at a school. In such instances, public outcry tends to lean in the direction of "why isn't 'the government' doing more to protect our children?", and it is inevitable that knee-jerk legislation will result. For any legislative body to remain silent under such duress would not augur well their chances of re-election, and so we simply have to deal with the consequences of politicians quickly enacting legislation in order that they not be perceived to be doing nothing (from which careful, reasoned analysis of a problem is often indistinguishable in a soundbite-oriented society.)

Hanlon's razor implores that we must never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. While there may well be some small minority of politicians (or, more probably, holders of appointed office) who genuinely wish to act in a manner which is contrary to the preservation of freedom, a much greater number choose merely to act in the manner which they perceive to cause the least harm to their own career under circumstances of great duress.



And thus, the crux of the matter is exposed.

If we want to distill it down to something as simplistic as "pro" vs. "con," then it's fairest to say that those who are most strongly impassioned on both sides of the issue tend to argue from a principally emotional point of view, and seem to be much more interested in making their point heard than in listening to and comprehending any arguments being put forth by "the enemy."

This is no way to run a society, regardless of your personal biases or opinions on any given subject. And yet, it seems to be the system of policymaking which we have constructed for ourselves.

What to do...

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I love that you make annotations!

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Just so we're clear, are you arguing in favor of arbitrary lawmaking? Or just noting that it exists? Because I've already done that.

nitrodann

I imagine he is arguing in favour because it is the only way to keep the system from immediately being so complicated that none of it works.

I think that there should be a council whos job it is to remove legislation as new legislation comes in.

or something I dunno. I am pretty anti statist, and regardless of the fact that a state will always exist due to human stupidity and laziness and sheep like tendencies, they long term effect of the state is that legislation just keeps getting added until everyone has a number, drives a blue prius, at 25mph to Gov Corp manufacturing Ltd, and eats corn flakes or whatever.

Eventually everything is legislated and no one has any freedoms.

Dann

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

That is one thing that has always really bothered me. New stuff passes, and the old outdated stuff isn't removed. It's like installing new firmware or drivers and leaving the old stuff there to conflict. I saw a graph somewhere a few months ago about the number of pages of federal law. Seems like the number at the turn of the last century was around 500. Current number is around 27,000. It's ******* ridiculous! And you just know that so much of that **** is so outdated, irrelevant and conflicting with current laws. That's exactly why so much in the US government is so inefficient and it takes so long to get anything done. Red tape EVERYWHERE!

BTW, that's pages, not laws. The number of laws that can fit on a page...?

And something else I found while browsing around. Feast your eyes upon that bullshit.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I like pictures:



and the law: Happy New Year! 141 New Federal Regulations Added In 3 Days

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

For those that haven't actually read Dick's article... here:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-...ember-2013.pdf

I also urge anybody who has any interest in firearms one way or another to register at THEFIRINGLINE. Their Law&CivilRights forum is probably the best place on the entire internet to read and learn about gun-related legalities and policy. Many of the people who post in this forum are lawyers and firearms scholars. It is kept very civil and Obama rants are not tolerated... great place to get very specific technical and unbiased data from experts... kinda like MT.net.

The original topic of this post, regarding Dick Metcalfs article was hashed out back in November in great deal by people who actually know what they are talking about... for both sides of his article. I'll throw some highlights down here, but please, have a read through at least the first page:
No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations? - The Firing Line Forums

Dick wrote this article because there is a huge population of gun-owners that rely on the "what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?" mindset and contribute absolutely nothing to the fight except their NRA memberships... which is awesome, but their attitudes don't actually "help" the NRA and other grass-roots organizations change laws, which is what counts. While I agree in principle with that statement, I also know we live in a nation of laws... and to keep my guns, I need to do more than just fold my arms and yell "NO". I need to be legally and politically active, write letters, appear at rally's, etc... Smart people understand this... dumb-*** rednecks do not.

Metcalf's problem was his timing. If he'd written this a couple years ago, mid-election cycle and before Aurora/SHE, he might have been better received... but with the current full-frontal attack on gun-ownership, the "You're either with us or against us" mindset is very powerful.

Grant Cunningham sums up some things pretty good:
http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_...editorial.html

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I'm espousing the rule of law as a general principle, and acknowledging the fact that while a law designed to cover the majority of situations may seem arbitrary in some, this does not diminish the necessity of having a uniform code of laws, but rather reinforces the vital significance of the role played by the judiciary in interpreting them. (See the citations provided in the second half of the post to which you are responding.)



Samnavy has dug up some really interesting and informative bits of discussion there, which really dig right down to the core of the "problem." It's not about guns at all, it's about people adopting extremist and binary points of view, and being completely unwilling (or unable) to have rational discussions about highly polarizing topics.

The question of "when regulation becomes infringement," for instance, is an excellent one, because it acknowledges that not all regulation is infringement, while simultaneously admitting that individual liberty must be accounted for in the debate about the common good.

Likewise, the writer who separates the form of the argument from the substance of the argument does a great service, in re: "Because Dick resorts to poor analogies people are going to claim that the underlying point he's making is false. It isn't." All too often, we make the mistake of judging that since a person has done a poor job of conveying a certain point, that not only is their argument invalid, but the point itself is false. In fact, this mindset is so ingrained in our society that criminal convictions are often overturned in the appeals courts not because the guilt of the defendant is specifically disproven, but because the argument made by the prosecution is found to be in some way defective.



Sadly, those who are most vocal in matters such as this are most often the least willing to even consider such arguments as these, as admitting the possibility (for instance) that not all regulation is inherently harmful to individual liberties is likely to inflame the opinions of the very extremists upon whose support said individual rely, be it in the form of magazine ads, campaign contributions, or votes at the poll.

Fireindc

iTrader: (13)

Because the title of this thread is very hypocritical, I must ask Joe: did you do that on purpose?

It gave me a chuckle that you call out fear mongering pro gun lobbyists (which certainly DO exist) by using fear mongering in the title of the thread. This type of behavior exists on both sides of the argument (well, any argument really), and it's downright ridiculous.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

It's meant to be a style-parody of many of the supposedly "serious" threads which pop up from time to time, not only here but in most public forums generally, wherein the author makes inflated and outrageous claims under the guise of "revealing the hidden truth," but with the actual purpose of merely inflaming public opinion towards the goal of [self-aggrandizement / selling advertising / winning an election / etc.]

I made a subtle reference to this back in post #41, under Note 3. This is similar to the thread which I created some time ago entitled "Breaking News from Fukushima!" to report that, in fact, nothing at all of any interest was happening. (This would be in contrast to the many "news" stories at the time which were speculating wildly about how the Fuku reactors were still going to explode, how fallout from them was going to poison every infant on the west coast of the US, etc.)





A similar concept would be Stephen Colbert's 2010 "March to Keep Fear Alive," which was a mock event intended to poke fun at Glenn Beck's announced "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial, and the subsequent "Reclaim the Dream" march staged by Al Sharpton on the same day. After John Stewart ALSO announced a similarly satirical "Rally to Restore Sanity," the two merged into the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear." It was considerably more popular than the supposedly "serious" rallies which it mocked.




But while the title is intended to be humorous, the thread itself is not. This actually is a very interesting subject- not "gun control" itself, but rather the public debate which surrounds it. It's a microcosmic illustration for the state of discourse in America generally, and a cautionary tale about how reductio ad absurdum sometimes manages to become actual policy if we let it.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

On first day of online sign-up, 4,500 seek concealed carry permits - Chicago Sun-Times

Only 7,043 Illinoisans were enrolled in Obamacare plans two months after the website's launch, the Chicago Tribune reported in December.

Maybe we need to make gun ownership mandatory? seems like it's a purchase consumers actually want to make...

TheScaryOne

iTrader: (3)

Still reading through the thread, but I had to post this.

This is the single most important line in the article. Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

Does this sound like the words of someone who intended gun rights to be purely for self defense and recreation? One of the main reasons we won the Revolutionary War is because we were using advanced French and German-style rifles with longer range and accuracy, and individual training while the red coats were still stuck with mostly inaccurate smooth bore muskets and formation training. If the opposite were true, we'd probably still be part of the Commonwealth. Part of the reason we're a country is that we (as individuals) had better weapons and training than our current army.

Here's a part of a copypasta I wrote, just in case someone has pulled out the "well regulated militia" talking point.

And my response to the "guns are designed to kill argument." From the Gun Rights thread. Edit: Just realized this has been paraphrased in this thread as the "Assault Pool" argument.

But no one is rushing out to ban swimming pools. Just "make them safer." What you're telling me here is your privilege to own a private lake is more important than my constitutional right to own a weapon to protect myself, my fellow citizens, or my country. A right that has already been thrashed by 75 years of anti-gun law.

Go back to Tumblr SJW. They miss you there. The recent Colorado shooting, the one that occurred just NINE DAYS after "the media" played recordings of the Newtown 911 tapes (remember, "the media" is innocent. They in no way let people know that if you're sick in the head and want to go down as a legend with 24/7 news feeds about your life that you need to do something horrific in a public place with unprotected people) was stopped when the school security guard booked it across campus and drew his gun on the shooter. Once he came up to armed resistance, the shooter committed suicide. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun..."

Gun murders are decreasing. By a lot. Gun suicides.... Not so much. But when you have the right tool for the job... :/ BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE KNEEJERK OVERREACTING GLORIFYING MEDIA. Or maybe it does.
'Columbine' Author Dave Cullen Criticizes Media's Handling Of Mass Shootings

Mass Shooting and Mass Media, Does Media Coverage Inspire Copycat Crimes?

And I had a list somewhere of what I considered real common sense gun law proposals that would actually work toward preventing gun crime. It might be on my other computer. I'll dig around for it and post it if I find it. Mostly it had to do with the ATF doing it's job, and not acting as the poster boy for the failed War on Drugs, using outdated laws designed to ensnare the Mafia on individuals without a clue.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

If anyone here is legitimately interested in this topic, I do encourage you to read through the first page or two of the "Should you be allowed to own an RPG?" thread. Joe - That thread, read from your perspective, would be as much about the conversation and back-and-forth as it would the content.

I had started out as decidedly "pro-gun responsible gun ownership," but began to seriously question my position. While there was some initial less-constructive dialogue, I did additional research and some excellent points were made. Many of them have been paraphrased here.

The last couple of pages of that thread devolved into a more broadly political gun rights thread.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I take that back. That thread has a horrific signal to noise ratio.

chicksdigmiatas

iTrader: (11)

I enjoyed reading some of this. Others parts, not so much.

I don't have a huge problem with what Dick wrote in his article. I think there are things that require more training, and carrying a firearm with you at all times is one of them. Personally, I think people should have more intensive driving examinations, and have to go through a lot more to get their license, but it is all about the money I suppose. Anyways, in the CCL class I took, it consisted of discussing rules with the judge for a few hours, then some range time where the deputies were happy to show off their swat weapons and let you use them. The full auto MP5 was a blast BTW. There were multitudes of people there who just plain couldn't shoot. They gave them their licenses anyways. So, this brings me to the first "compromise" that I would make:

I generally favor states rights, and states handling different regulations at local levels, but the self defense laws need some continuity and need to be the same or roughly the same over all states. In TX, I can shoot someone for stealing my laptop/car/lawn gnome. In TN I can't. In some states you have to try to retreat from the intruder which is threatening you. It is hard to keep straight. I don't want to have to sit there and ponder it if I am visiting another state. At the end of the day, I am going to do what needs to get done, but other people may not. Sort of the same with the CCL. I have to conceal in TX (for some reason you can't open carry, or give anyone reason to believe you have a weapon) and in TN, I can carry it openly however I want. I think qualifying for my gun license should be harder. I think it should be military style. You have to get so many hits in certain positions to qualify. If not, no license. I would be fine with that. You should have to demonstrate through knowledge of self defense laws and demonstrate capability with whatever weapon you have. It may be more expensive, I really believe there are some clowns out there with a CCL that don't know proper weapon clearing and safety procedures.



I truly believe that the crux of the situation is the media, and public perception. The media makes the "black scary rifle" out to be the bad guy. We have enough lemmings in our country to believe it. I don't believe automatic weapons are that bad. Have you ever tried to hit anything with one? It takes some training. The first time I shot one maybe one bullet went on target at 25m. The supressor thing is retarded as well. You can make them out of an oil filter or other readily available materials. Restricting these isn't keeping the criminals from getting them.

Restricting any semi automatic long rifle would be retarded. As everyone else has said, it just hurts the law abiding citizens. Those ridiculous CA, NY, and other laws are just that. I can reload one fairly quick with small mags, and the CA "tool" that they require is asinine. Aside from that, if anyone wants to do some damage in CA, all they have to do is adapt theirs, and drive to AZ to get some mags. That isn't stopping anything. Not like their isn't a ton of illegal weapons floating around over there anyways. All that did was hurt the normal guy.

What they need to do is get rid of the unenforcable laws that do nothing (see CA) and try to help the law abiding citizen make correct decisions about defending themselves against those who want to do harm. How to secure your fire arms and make sure they don't get used for illegal means. When to shoot, and when not to shoot.

As far as the mental evaluations go. I could easily fail one. However, I have seen a whacked out marine who had just had TBI from an IED strike pass not one, but six. Those things don't work. You could get a normal honest person failing one because they aren't trying to answer to the test, yet a psycopath passing one. Anyone with one iota of common sense can pass one, really. I think the bills existing are too strict on that. If I get in a fight with a guy, maybe even defending myself. Get charged with assault, and lose my rights, is that just? My dad can't legally buy a gun for that and he isn't likely to go on any shooting sprees.

Truth is, I would probably be much more deadly behind that M1 EO2K posted than behind an AR-15, definately at range. My Remington 798 is a beast and a motivated individual behind that would be unstoppable with a decent scope. It would be idiot proof at 300-400 yards. No one is gunning for that. No one is going to look twice at him zeroing the scope at the range, or buying a ghille suit, or whatever. My AR takes some thought and training to hit targets that far away.

At the end of the day, columbine, ok city, boston, and plenty of places over here have show what a bad guy can do with some improvised explosives versus large groups of people, and you just can't stop that. You can even do so with fairly complete anonymity or a death wish, and which dying is the least of their worries it seems.

If we are compromising, I would want to give into stricter licensing procedures for carrying a weapon (not owning one), and less equipment restrictions, which do relatively nothing.