Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
My Blog List
-
-
-
Links 11/15/20241 hour ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cartoon: Explain away12 hours ago
-
Bad and Getting Worse1 day ago
-
-
-
-
The Ugly American4 days ago
-
Here’s What We Do NowA Personal Note1 week ago
-
Election Day Jitters1 week ago
-
-
-
-
In Memorium10 months ago
-
-
Search4 years ago
-
-
who links to me?
Counter
The Gallery at night
Warning
Summer field
Late Summer Sunset
Chicago, downtown
under a bridge, by the lake
25 comments:
You can say the same thing about communications. It used to be that if you wanted to conspire with someone, or join a terrorist group, you'd have to meet them. To even find such a group you would have to expose yourself. If you wanted to communicate bad ideas to multiple people you had to set up a printing press, print and deliver your ideas on paper.
Does freedom of speech only apply in person? Freedom of the press only with a literal press with paper? Is offset printing covered, or is that too new a technology? How many years of technological advance renders the constitution irrelevant? Is this discussion constitutionally protected?
Would it be OK for the government to ban my arguments from the Internet?
This is an extremely common and repeated tactic on both your part and that of so many, especially Right Wingers, on the internet and in our society any more. That is, take the original point of a person and exaggerate it wildly, to a ridiculous and/or absurd extreme and then throw it back in the authors face. In this case, it's not just exaggerated, however. It becomes an entire non-sequitur.
You compare freedom of speech from centuries ago to today with our computers and technology. This subject, compared to guns, is a wholly false analogy. The two are completely disconnected though I'm sure you'll either not get that and deny it. So it goes.
So yes, to answer your question, free speech is free speech, from then to today.
That said, muskets are, in no way, comparable in their capability and lethality to today's AK-47s and AR-15s and the like.
20 children--children--and 6 adults were slaughtered in minutes, as we all know, at Sandy Hook.
Try doing that with a musket.
Now, 49 people were mowed down and in just minutes, by a crazed young man and his AR-15.
Again, try doing that with a musket.
Thanks for writing. It's always good to hear from you but you are capable of better comparisons and contrasts than this. Accurate, legitimate ones.
It isn't different at all--We've got terrorism and other violence that wouldn't exist, or would be easier to contain without the Internet. We have politicians and government officials calling for "reasonable restrictions" on internet speech and privacy, using terrorism as an excuse.
I couldn't kill 20 people with a musket...or a basketball, or a butter knife. Oklahoma City shows what can be done with fertilizer and diesel. There are other methods that would be likely to work using other easily available material, especially if the perpetrator didn't expect to survive, and had the Internet to do research.
We had 15 shot repeating guns suitable for offensive use since before the constitution. That was before percussion caps, you had to use them within about 15 minutes of final preparation. Not much of a problem if you are planning an attack, but makes them difficult to use for defense. Pretty much as soon as someone invented percussion caps they were used to make repeating guns practical for defense. As soon as self contained metallic cartridges were invented they were used to improve repeaters. As soon as smokeless gunpowder with less fouling was invented, machine guns followed, and then semiautomatic guns a few years later. All the major firearms features were invented by about 1900 or so, since then we've made different arrangements of features and incremental improvements, but nothing really new.
Where on this does a gun go from a constitutionally protected right to something too modern so that it can be revoked at whim? 1820? 1850? 1890?
You keep getting more and more obscure in your analogies, honestly.
Who, exactly, is talking about reducing or limiting speech in the US? I follow current events and politics daily, closely and have seen no one even suggesting it, let alone proposing it.
Again, how great you would bring up the Oklahoma City bombing. After McVeigh did that, we responded as a nation. We didnt any longer allow unlimited purchase of nitrogen, etc. We cut back. We made limitations. After each and every additional, new slaughter of innocent Americans, we continue to repeatedly do nothing whatever It's insane. So again, thanks for bringing that up. It's a perfect example for me and for what ought to happen with weapons and background checks and assault weapons.
The rest of your examples of weapons, especially comparing, again, muskets to, today, AR-15s and Ak-47s and the like are ridiculous to the point of absurd.
30 seconds of Google says that there are still no federal restrictions on nitrogen based fertilizers, and only a few states even require keeping sales records. As it should be--if we react with more restrictions every time there's a terrorist event, it encourages more terrorism. Instead, refuse to be terrorized as much as possible...and shoot back.
In one breath you say that I'm paranoid if I think anyone wants to take my guns...in the next you say that nobody needs this type of gun or that type of gun--and that list includes all the most common guns. The bans that you personally have called for on this blog, using common definitions would ban every gun that I personally own.
What guns are protected under the second amendment? Why is that such a hard question for any gun control advocate to answer with even a tiny amount of specificity?
Our response, as a nation, through our government, to the Oklahoma bombing:
Homeland Security to Regulate Fertilizer Chemical Used in Oklahoma City
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/02/homeland-security-to-regulate-fertilizer-chemical-used-in-oklahoma-city-norway.html
Yes, it's proven, month after month, year after year, anyone who thinks someone is out there---Obama or otherwise---that's going to take all the weapons in the US, the only conclusion is that they're paranoid, unequivocally. To then say AK-47s and AR-15s and the like don't belong on our streets and commonly in our nation only makes sense, at least to those of us who recognize we neither live in a war zone nor want to.
Surely you saw, this week, how the creator of the AR-15 announced very publicly that he and his company no way ever intended it to be a common weapon on the streets of the US.
Surely you've seen the posting on Facebook, also this week, from and by the American soldier declaring he was in war and used AR-15s and no way thinks they belong on our streets.
Surely you're familiar with the quote from very Right Wing, very Conservative, very Republican Ronald Reagan, in which he said no way do these things belong on our streets. They make no sense whatever and should play no role whatever in our nation.
What guns are protected under the second amendment?
The ones people hunt with and want and maybe even need for whatever reason. This doesn't include automatic and semi-automatic weapons otherwise suitable only for war and war zones. You want these specific everywhere, including the cities and streets
of your nation? Go to Somalia. The 2nd Amendment does, in fact, call out a "well-regulated militia", after all.
I'm not sure whose argument the fertilizer article is supposed to support--it says that by 2011 we are still only contemplating regulations. Today Homeland Security's website shows that rules are still in "proposed" status, nothing finalized yet.
2 pictures of guns:
http://imgur.com/QJjGwQB
http://imgur.com/JegRc2X
The rifle is a Ruger 10/22--10 round rotary magazine, fires .22 long rifle cartridges, the most common and weakest ammunition currently available. A great rifle for beginning marksmanship, that's why I bought it.
The handgun on the right is a Ruger 22/45--Fires the same .22 as the rifle, from a 10 round single column magazine. This is designed as a training gun, with controls similar to a model 1911 Colt (The 1911 is named for the first year it was sold). The 22/45 is also excellent for new shooters--the medium size and low power cartridge mean it has much less recoil, noise and flash compared to centerfire guns.
The middle handgun is a Smith and Wesson Centennial revolver, holds 5 rounds of .38 Special. Double action only, designed specifically for concealed carry or as a police backup gun. Takes some skill to shoot well. Introduced in a steel frame in 1950, this one is aluminum with a steel cylinder.
On the right is a Smith and Wesson Shield, holds 8 rounds of 9mm. This particular one has a green laser sight. Also designed for concealed carry. It is easier to shoot, better in a belt holster but worse in a pocket holster than the Centennial.
Are any of these acceptable for law abiding civilians to own? Is there some other information you would need to make that decision?
Some gun control advocates want to take away every useful gun in the US, and only leave the ones suitable for hobbies. I don't think the Bill of Rights was enacted with hobbies in mind.
Ammonium nitrate:
The U.S. Finally Starts Regulating Sales Of Ammonium Nitrate
http://www.businessinsider.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-ammonium-nitrate-sales-regulated-2011-8
"Some gun control advocates want to take away every useful gun in the US..."
Really?
Who? Who, specifically? Because no one, no one remotely close to Washington, DC wants to do this nor thinks it's remotely supportable. Heck, if it weren't for the Democrats finally, finally having a sit down protest this week in the House, nothing has been done toward any meaningful legislation having to do with weapons.
Guns in the US aren't going anywhere. You can relax.
You should read the articles you post a little more thoroughly. Nothing has changed on Ammonium Nitrate yet, that article says "we're thinking about changes" from 2011. The links say "we're thinking about changes". Current Homeland Security website says "We're thinking about changes", nothing about a schedule.
You. You specifically have called for banning almost every useful gun, almost every type of gun invented after WWI. Any politician calling for a ban on semiauto guns. Any politician calling for a ban on Saturday Night Specials.
If you refuse to answer which of the pictured guns you think we should be allowed to keep, it seems logical to assume you don't want us to keep any of them. I think your reluctance to give a clear answer is for the same reasons as politicians--you know you can't continue to claim "civilians shouldn't own these types of guns" and "we don't want to ban all your guns" if you are specific on which guns you DO want to ban.
So which is it--do I get to keep some of the pictured guns, or do you want to take all the guns that are useful to me?
On the contrary. I've never, here or anywhere else, called for anything more than requiring background checks for all weapons purchases for mental stability and criminal history and no longer allowing assault weapons in the nation. That's it.
Once again, you, like so many who argue these points, insist that I and lots of others are calling for the elimination of all weapons. Your statement here, above, proves it: "it seems logical to assume you don't want us to keep any of them." It's patently untrue.
No one's coming for your guns.
At least, not all of them. There would still be plenty, plenty in the nation. Millions, in fact. Hundreds of millions.
"This doesn't include automatic and semi-automatic weapons otherwise suitable only for war and war zones."
"they will fight to keep our semi-automatic and automatic weapons"
"would require owners of semi-automatic weapons to surrender, destroy or send their guns to another state within 90 days of the measure’s passage"
"There is no good use for automatic or even semi-automatic weapons. They aren't good for hunting. There only purpose is to mow down people and in rapid succession"
"Look at the national support for a national ban on semi-automatic and assault weapons"
"And if we had strong gun laws that prohibited automatic and semi-automatic weapons"
All of these are quotes from your blog that I found from a single Google search I don't know what other conclusion I'm supposed to take from those words, other than wanting to ban them. Has your position on semiautomatic guns somehow changed, are some semiautomatic guns are OK for civilians to own?
Nobody is coming for them...yet. That isn't because they (and you) don't want to, it's that you don't think you can pass the necessary laws, yet. So no, I'm not worried yet, but I'm going to avoid getting complacent.
You won't say which of the guns I pictured I get to keep, I don't know what other conclusion I should come to other than "none of them". You should have the integrity to say so.
I have had far more people than just you, out on the internet but on Facebook, specifically, want to pin me and everyone else who thinks we need solutions to the 30,000+ innocent Americans who are gunned down and killed in our nation each year.
I can tell you AR-15s and AK-47s have no place on our streets, just as most Americans in our nation agree and just as none other than Ronald Reagan believed, felt and stated.
The rest I'll leave to the weapons experts and lawyers who would sort it out.
Again, rest assured, weapons in this nation, overall, are going nowhere. No one's come for them in the past, no one's coming for them now, nor will they in the future.
You're either scared or fear-mongering or both.
Chill.
Do you have even a rough guess about how many AR or AK style guns are part of your 30,000 "innocent" Americans? And whatever that number is sufficient for bans?
...and I'm the one that's scared or fear-mongering?
What you call and consider my "fear", being as it is based on the 30-plus thousand innocent Americans who die each year here in America, is extremely rational, first.
Second, you realize you're defending the ability to mow down many, many people in rapid fashion, in our society, right? These things are only good for killing lots of people quickly. But you're good with that. And you think I'm mistaken and/or irrational.
It is dishonest to call for a ban on AK/AR rifles without knowing what it is about them you want to ban. You either want to ban any semiautomatic, any gun with a box magazine, any gun with enough power to humanely hunt deer or some combination of those features--or you are completely arbitrary and aren't basing your ban on anything but fear and sensational news reports.
In 2014, the FBI said there were 248 total rifle murders, other years are similar. AR/AK type guns are rifles, but aren't counted separately from other types of rifles. There were 262 shotgun murders. It is dishonest to use 30,000 when talking about AR/AK style guns.
Right Wingers and Republicans and weapons enthusiasts, I've seen, repeatedly, find it important to call people things. Not as bad as Donald Trump does, certainly, usually, though not always but frequently enough. You find it important to call me dishonest.
What about ARs and AKs are the feature I/we find it is about them we want to ban?
I've said it here, certainly, often, frequently enough.
It's that they can shoot so many rounds so quickly.
Simple as that. It's how the shooters with them can mow down 20 children and 6 adults in a school or 49 innocent Americans on a weekend so sickeningly quickly.
What is it about this you don't understand?
We want to at least reduce the numbers of innocent Americans that are both shot and killed in America. Daily. Weekly. Monthly. Yearly.
So no, neither I nor the rest of us are basing this on just fear.
And sorry, but 26 innocent people at an elementary school and 49 people on a Saturday night and on and on and on are far more than "sensational news reports." We're not that cold-blooded or supportive of weapons over Americans and humans and human lives.
If "shoot rounds so quickly, it's that simple" is the criteria, you are calling for banning all semiautomatic guns with box magazines. Any gun that can take a box magazine can take a big box magazine. I don't know the exact numbers, but that's well over half of all guns sold today. Calling it simple doesn't make it simple.
I want to reduce the numbers of innocent people shot. Of all the public mass shootings in the US since the 50's, 3 were where a gun was allowed. Don't drink and carry, but let the designated driver carry--lots of states allow that, we aren't having a problem with license holders shooting up bars. Volunteer for the Pink Pistols. (I have) or Operation Blazing Sword (I have) to train LGBTQ people in basic handgun skills.
And while on that subject--The initial police response in Orlando was fantastic--Heroic patrolmen running towards gunfire, quickly had the gunman cornered in a bathroom. And then their bosses told them to withdraw and wait for SWAT. Hours later, while innocent people were bleeding and dying, SWAT finally got their act together. I don't know the situation the initial cops faced, but for the last 17 years doctrine has been to go in pairs with what and who arrives on scene first, and NOT wait for SWAT, NOT wait for the gunman to prepare, NOT allow him to continue killing, NOT allow his victims to bleed to death waiting for help. That doctrine has been very successful. Why the difference when the victims are gay? If the government won't properly protect them shouldn't we at least allow them to protect themselves and each other?
20 times more handgun murders than all rifle murders, but you still claim that the decision to concentrate most of your attention on a fraction of that 5% is based on logic and not fear or sensationalism? Suuuure.
I just saw this story from a few days ago:
"His round struck three victims and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-dense, pulled his own weapon and shot Thompson in the leg.
The man who shot Thompson has a valid concealed weapons permit and will not be facing charges, deputies say."
http://wspa.com/2016/06/26/several-people-hurt-in-playoffz-nightclub-shooting/
"Man fires into crowd but stopped before anyone dies" isn't sensational enough to get much national attention.
Yes, those situations occur.
Occasionally.
Rarely, but occasionally.
Statistically, one is far more likely to be shot and/or killed and by their own weapon in their own home, than this oddity you posted. Additionally, suicide is also far, far more statistically likely when there is a gun in the home.
The facts are against you on this, honestly.
I thought we were talking about mass shootings, and the need to ban AR/AK type rifles? it is apparent by your (and your side's) shifting argument that you would prefer to ban almost everything, but you'll use whatever excuse to ban whatever you can get away with.
You say "ban the AR and AK type guns"...but that wouldn't have helped here, this shooter used a SIG MCX--similar, but with substantial enough mechanical differences that it isn't an AR. And that's my point--AR/AK type guns aren't that different from other guns, banning them by name is useless, and if you're going to ban them by feature, you need to decide what features you're going to ban. If it is "shoots fast" you need to decide how fast is allowed. I should know what guns are constitutionally protected, and which ones are merely tolerated for now.
That you use suicide as justification (especially in a discussion about AR's) says a lot about your attitudes. I'm not demanding that you own guns. I would fully support a law that would allow you to voluntarily give up your gun rights if you think you would be safer without them. It is reasonable to decide when my activities that might endanger others enough to outweigh my rights, but to use me voluntarily endangering myself as justification is condescending and paternalistic.
Fortunately for me and "my side" and Americans, the courts agree with us, however much you ramble on and either defend or try to defend the obscene numbers of weapons we have in our nation and their outrageous lethality.
Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules
Consistent with prior precedent, the court found machine guns to be “dangerous and unusual” weapons.
(From the Huffington Post).
I only mentioned suicide in America because weapons in homes, it's proven, advance greatly their likelihood. That was not a comment on automatic or semi-automatic weapons as those are rarely, if ever, used for that purpose. I thought you would have understood that. I gave you that credit.
I think you and others like you are losing this battle, no pun intended, once and for all. Hopefully, hopefully. Americans are finally, finally waking up and realizing we not only don't have to live like this but that we can't live like this. Far too many innocent Americans, again, are being cut down in our streets and in our homes.
And yet another time, I have to say, no one, no one is saying any one person, let alone thousands or hundreds of thousands of us or million, for that matter, will have to give up weapons. Not in this nation. Don't kid yourself. I'm certainly not. We'll always have weapons in this nation. Always. Your saying or suggesting anyone in their right mind is realistically calling for that is just paranoid nonsense or emotionalism or some other unnecessary distraction.
This is no way to live.
What do machine guns have to do with any of this discussion? I thought we were talking about modern semiautomatics. Have you been confused by the deliberate deception of the gun control groups into thinking that machine guns are significantly available in the US, or that the tiny handful of legal machine guns are significantly used in crimes? Or are you trying to continue that dishonesty, trying to confuse others into thinking that there is a significant machine gun crime problem in the US?
To be clear--For all practical purposes there is no violent machine gun crime in the US. Machine guns scare the ignorant, but they are irrelevant in the context of US gun violence except as misdirection.
"They don't want to come for your guns" is propaganda, using the Big Lie technique-- "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." Maybe there is some gun that you don't want to ban but for some reason haven't yet identified, but you personally have repeatedly called for bans on all the guns I own, every type of gun I personally care about. The same goes for the Brady Campaign, and all of Bloomberg's groups--Moms Demand and Mayors Against.
So which is it-Are you confused about machine guns, or are you trying to confuse others?
My issue is with automatic and semi-automatic weapons, frankly, and their huge, absurd, totally unnecessary lethality. "Machine guns" was the term used by the article I posted from Huffington Post and was used by the court.
Right, machine gun was the term used by the court, to refer to machine guns, not semiautomatics.
So apparently you are claiming confusion. Refusing to learn the difference is still dishonest for someone as involved in the issue as you are.
No, I'm not claiming confusion. I didn't earlier, nor remotely suggested it.
Again, it was the article's headline. I wouldn't have chosen those words.
Post a Comment