Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Oh I see, now. That government doesn't call certain things "Arms" and they get a free pass to keep it out of a citizen's hand.

I honestly don't give a crap what the government calls things. Because they get it wrong so many times.

They can't use the term machine gun because those are heaviliy regulated so they used the made up term 'assault weapon. That defines 'arms' by how they look not on how they function.

An "assault weapon" is an actual thing. There is an actual, concrete description of what constitutes an "assault weapon" - just not the government's definition. That (governmental) definition does NOT constitute an "assault weapon".

It would be like the government redefining "bipolar" to mean "likes cats", and then thinking that psychologists would go along with that definition.

If you want to know what a thing is, ask the folks who routinely work with those things. If you want to know how to define a particular mental illness, you ask a psychologist, not a Senator. Why would you ask a Senator what the definition of a particular weapon is?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

And I guess you can't just address anything that I stated there either. Dismiss it with fact, or your coveted "Common sense discussion"?

Here are the questions directly.
How would those with Mental Illness be identified?
What are the thresholds/markers for good and bad?
Where is this info kept?
Who has access to it?
How do you get people to accept this database?
What about those that refuse to see a doctor?


You truly haven't though any of this out, to the end result have you.

If you have, that is even more scary as you are fine to give up a large chunk of Freedom/Rights for a small bit of fantasy based security.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Nobody was saying that people can't make crude firearms at home with basic tools, some skill, and ingenuity.

This whole stupid argument started when someone basically claimed "Pakistani kids can make an AK out of a bucket, a handful of sand, and a hammer."

That's a gross misinterpretation of what's involved in manufacturing a modern semi-automatic firearm. The whole discussion spun wildly out of control afterward with a whole lot of derp about stuff that's irrelevant to the original rebuttal.

a reply to: Sunwolf

Ohhh, I like where this is going...

Yes...and where can I join up.

originally posted by: nenothtu


It would be like the government redefining "bipolar" to mean "likes cats", and then thinking that psychologists would go along with that definition.

I might actually agree with them based on my personal experience.

a reply to: macman

"Shall not be infringed"......4 words if I'm not mistaken.

Perhaps you could set me straight on something that I'm not sure of.

When someone has said that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to set certain guidelines or standards, you have said that there is no need because the military has done that for us already, correct?

If I'm not mistaken, the military is bound by standardization agreements with NATO, correct?

If that is all true, then it could be said that our second amendment rights are at the whim of a foreign entity because the very military that dictates our guidelines as to what firearms are acceptable, are dictated by a foreign standard agreement?

Set me straight please.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

You asked for an example.

You got one.

Wounded Knee was an example of only one side, the wrong one in this instance, having the weapons, up to and including some cannons.

They weren't citizens? Really?

a reply to: introvert

No, not really.

For NATO requirements, we, as in our Military, agreed to adhere to NATO, such as standardized small arms rounds, to meet NATO requirements.

The members of the NATO agreement don't dictate to the US Military.

Now, the 2nd is not bound to the Military, and the Military is not bound by the 2nd.
Militia is the correct term. Now, go and research what the Militia entails and who is in the Militia.
Here is a starting point. Title 10 USC 311. Militia composition and classes.

a reply to: butcherguy

To my shame, I'd actually forgotten Wounded Knee II.

a reply to: nenothtu

An "assault weapon" is an actual thing. There is an actual, concrete description of what constitutes an "assault weapon" - just not the government's definition. That (governmental) definition does NOT constitute an "assault weapon".

I don't call an AR an 'assault' weapon.

Anything can be used to 'assault'.

Bats,knives, cars, and the list goes on.

Let em ban 'assault knives' hell far too many mass stabbings are going on.

Let them ban 'assault bats' far too many people getting hit with them.

Let them ban 'assault' fists!

Anything can be used to 'assault'.

Hell let's ban speech. The weapon that is most used to assault people in the world.

originally posted by: nenothtu
It would be like the government redefining "bipolar" to mean "likes cats", and then thinking that psychologists would go along with that definition.

That's pretty much how the government operates when it comes to idea established by academics that then ends up being legislated on by the government. It's actually follows a flowchart pattern: ignore science/academics in the field, invent new rhetoric and strawmans about it, pretend those are the argument, legislate accordingly.

a reply to: macman

I understand that we are all, with some exceptions, part of the unorganized militia, but where exactly can I learn about these standards the military have in place that coincides with the 2nd amendment to say what it acceptable or not to have as a firearm?

a reply to: introvert

I didn't say that the Military drives the 2nd. I said that the term "Arms" was driven by the Military.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's pretty much how the government operates when it comes to idea established by academics that then ends up being legislated on by the government. It's actually follows a flowchart pattern: ignore science/academics in the field, invent new rhetoric and strawmans about it, pretend those are the argument, legislate accordingly.

Except when it comes to global warming.

Like gun owners the planet is out to get us.

a reply to: Answer

You make a very good point. It's true that gun related deaths have been on a steady decline. I know it's easy to correlate to the increase in gun ownership to the decrease in violent crime, but correlation does not equal causation. It could be that violent crimes are decreasing as a result of the increased "police state" style of policing that has been going on since the early 70s and the advent of the "drug war". Of course, it could also be because more people are armed. It's hard to say.

What I can say is that since living in Japan, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, I rarely see reports of murders. In fact, the Japan Intentional Homicide Rate is at 0.3 per 100,000, whereas the the intentional homicide rate is at 4.7 per 100,000 in the United States. Again, correlation does not necessarily equate to causation, but the parallel is interesting.

Now, I don't agree with the gun laws in Japan. I wish I could have brought my guns with me from New Mexico to my new home here. Do want to live in a world where guns are no longer necessary? Sure. I think everyone wants to live in that world, unless they just revel in combat. I don't have good answers for how to intelligently implement restrictions on gun ownership without trampling on the rights of the average citizen. I'm not a game theorist, I'm not even a particularly intelligent girl. I just have my opinions on things, and I think it's a discussion worth having. If nothing comes of it, I would accept that, but at least we would have talked about it.

a reply to: macman

Earlier in the discussion I asked how to define "arms" and how do we decide what is acceptable on the streets, and I believe you said that the military had already done that.

I'd like to learn more about that.

originally posted by: Danbones

you do have to keep the guns, but if you don't keep your head up in the corners
you WILL get creamed anyway

And there it is. Right there. In a nutshell.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: macman

Earlier in the discussion I asked how to define "arms" and how do we decide what is acceptable on the streets, and I believe you said that the military had already done that.

I'd like to learn more about that.

Try this.

If that doesn't give you enough look at State and local restrictions.

a reply to: introvert

Arms were defined early on by Military actions. I am sure that of all the research and googling you have done, that you can produce your own search results.

originally posted by: introvert

We have to recognize that the founders could not have foreseen the future of weaponry, and the simplicity of the 2nd amendment shows that. If the founders were to write the 2nd amendment today, it would still grant the right to bear arms, but would also include some guidelines and basic "rules".

that's like saying that computer users of today cannot "foresee" that computers will continue advancing, and the computers of today will look like home-made charm bracelets by comparison. Do you seriously believe that the average computer user of today is somehow smarter, has a higher intellect and more capability and native intelligence, than the people who fought for and set up this country a couple hundred years ago?

The real beauty is that the founder knew the constitution would need to be changed, added to or modified and included the process to do so within the constitution.

True enough, but those first 10 amendments guarantee rights. Rights are not subject to change or revocation simply by the jot or tittle of changing a law. Laws have no effect on the existence of rights, only on government recognition of them.

This isn't 1776 and we are not running around defending ourselves from mobs of hostile indians. That's the context in which the 2nd amendment was written. Now it's 2015, technology and weaponry has changed, and we have the means to set some basic guidelines while still respecting the 2nd amendment.

Nope. Those hostile Indians have been replaced by gang bangers and assorted unpleasant criminals, but the process remains the same. The "basic guidelines" have already been set.