Time to repeal the Second Amendment?

[Calabrio]

But, why won't you answer the simple question - because you draw a line when it comes to the 2nd - where do you draw the line Cal?

There are two issues that need to be addressed before going farther with this specific question.

First, you have to stop the further encroachment on the liberty.
And only after that can you honestly discuss the agreed upon limitations. EVEN THEN, you'll probably end up with a federalist solution, one where individual states make this determination.

This isn't even worth discussing if you can't honestly answer that question.

Things will finally get interesting when you are willing to discuss these things without interjecting your subversive agenda.

That is a great idea - gun safety - and with kids is the very best place to start. But, you got to get parents on board as well.

More importantly, you need school boards and governments.
And the areas with the most need for such things are the most vigorously opposed.

The overblown rhetoric on both sides creates huge problems. Passion and reason often don't reside in the same boat.

You don't hear much 'overblown rhetoric' from the side that wants to defend the second amendment. To the contrary, they are the ones who mistakenly try to veil the cause behind skeet shooting and deer hunting. There is a concerted effort by the political defense of this funamental right to disguise it in benign ways.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about sport hunting.
It is not about skeet shooting.
It is about the ability of the individual to defend their liberty.

 

[foxpaws]

There are two issues that need to be addressed before going farther with this specific question.

First, you have to stop the further encroachment on the liberty.
And only after that can you honestly discuss the agreed upon limitations. EVEN THEN, you'll probably end up with a federalist solution, one where individual states make this determination.

Do you want UZI IMIs to be able to be purchased by just anyone in Texas that has the money with no background check (that could be a Texas allowance in your 'individual states decide' scenario)? Not really, because then criminals will have them in Minnesota, but the citizens in Minnesota won't (if Minnesota decided against allowing fully automatic machine guns).

Things will finally get interesting when you are willing to discuss these things without interjecting your subversive agenda.

So, where is my 'subversive agenda' here, and what is it Cal?

You don't hear much 'overblown rhetoric' from the side that wants to defend the second amendment. To the contrary, they are the ones who mistakenly try to veil the cause behind skeet shooting and deer hunting. There is a concerted effort by the political defense of this funamental right to disguise it in benign ways.

The 2nd amendment is NOT about sport hunting.
It is not about skeet shooting.
It is about the ability of the individual to defend their liberty

When you have Republican representatives stating that the 2nd is about the right of the populace to arm themselves against government tyranny - that is where it is pretty much overblown rhetoric. And is that what you mean as well Cal? If it is, then I want to be first in line for the keys to the Raptor and are we going to have a lottery on who gets the suitcase nukes?

We really have to accept at some point that an armed citizenry isn't really going to overtake the government - things have changed since the days of the revolution.

 

[cammerfe]

Lines

Hey Foxy---Properly answering your points will take more time than I have today. So I'll simply say that I don't have a 'line'. I wish the guy up the street had both an AA gun and a bazooka. Maybe he'd let me shoot them. Just as my possessions are nobody else's business, what somebody else has is none of mine. And the fact that you seem to think so is an excellent example of the chasm that stands between us.

KS

 

[foxpaws]

I wish the guy up the street had both an AA gun and a bazooka. Maybe he'd let me shoot them. Just as my possessions are nobody else's business, what somebody else has is none of mine.

So - the fact that if your neighbor had a bazooka means that the juvenile delinquent down the street has one too is just fine with you KS?

Because criminals get armed exactly as the citizenry gets armed.

What happened to limiting lethality?

 

[Frogman]

nitrogen tri-iodide is readily available

KS

I once read in a pamphlet that NI3 is very touchy and will go off if you merely look at it the wrong way.

Either way, all you need is the N2. The only hard part with that is the very short time you have between capping the open pipe end and it exploding, since N2 expands to about 780 times it's liquid state at 65* (or thereabouts)... and it does it FAST.

What do I mean by "very short time"? Less than 10 seconds, for a decent "boom" if you fill the device to around 4/3 of its liquid capacity. The less liquid N2 you pour into the device, the longer time you'll have, but obviously, the smaller the bang.

But as I've always said, you take away the guns, people will find other ways to kill each other with.

 

[cammerfe]

...'The Anarchist's Cookbook...'

I once read in a pamphlet that NI3 is very touchy and will go off if you merely look at it the wrong way.

So anybody dumb enough to actually try it should be VERY careful or have a significant chance of getting in trouble because you don't actually have to look at it at all. And although the raw materials to make nitrogen tri-iodide are readily available in the corner grocery store, it's at least a little difficult to get Liquid N2. This forum isn't intended to be a version of 'The Anarchist's Cookbook'.

KS

 

[Frogman]

I don't think I gave away any explosive secrets with talking about the expansion rate of N2 and how quickly it does so. If anyone is dumb enough to try it without proper training, then screw em. Furthermore, I was merely pointing out how dangerous your NI3 example really is.

As fas as just pure Liquid N2? No, actually it is not hard to obtain. You can walk into any Gases Plus location and buy it. As long as you have a proper storage container (read, an N2 transport - well insulated tanker designed for carrying nitrogen), they'll be glad to fill it up for you and take your money.

Ask me how I know this and I'll show you a picture of several Semi truck mounted N2 pumps and sitting at the shop, in the yard.

 

[Calabrio]

Do you want UZI IMIs to be able to be purchased by just anyone in Texas that has the money with no background check...

Did anyone, ever, suggest that people with criminal histories should be able to purchase fully automatic weapons? And do you think the people of Texas would actually support a law that said that mentally ill felons buy submachine guns off the street? Or illegal aliens?

The premise of your statement is so offensive, I don't know where to begin. Either you're building a very lame strawman argument, which is merely an annoying flaw of yours.

Or you're demonstrating your absolute contempt for regular Americans. As though they don't have the common sense to pass reasonable laws. That those people are so stupid, they need someone like you, to intervene and monitor the behavior of the state.

And if it's not guns, it's their dietary salt intake. Another issue you've decided that massive government intervention is appropriate.

Not really, because then criminals will have them in Minnesota, but the citizens in Minnesota won't (if Minnesota decided against allowing fully automatic machine guns).

I have an idea... why don't we just make murder illegal. Then we won't have any of these problems!

But to be clear, while you claim to be pro-constitution and pro-gun rights, you are simultaneously making arguments that are mislead and ANTI-constitution, ANTI-federalism, and ANTI-2nd Amendment....

We really have to accept at some point that an armed citizenry isn't really going to overtake the government - things have changed since the days of the revolution.

Actually an armed citizen can STILL protect themselves and their liberty for much longer and with much greater success than an unarmed one. Your statement presumes an awful lot and it's not a scenario I have an desire to wargame.

But more interesting that is your sentiment.
That the people are powerless against the government.
That those in and around government are necessary to run our lives because normal people are much too stupid.
And that federalism is a thing of the past and shouldn't be considered any longer.

 

[foxpaws]

Did anyone, ever, suggest that people with criminal histories should be able to purchase fully automatic weapons? And do you think the people of Texas would actually support a law that said that mentally ill felons buy submachine guns off the street? Or illegal aliens?

The premise of your statement is so offensive, I don't know where to begin. Either you're building a very lame strawman argument, which is merely an annoying flaw of yours.

And you are so annoying when you think linearly Cal -

If we allow UZIs (or say the people of Texas allows them) to be available for the public to buy - with the same restrictions Texas puts on semi automatic handguns, then they will be in 'circulation'. Any gun type in circulation ends up in the hands of criminals. Criminals can't buy semi automatic handguns - but guess what - they have them. Why? Because we have them. They steal them from houses, stores, shop owners. Gun store owners that might not really follow the law to the letter sell them to criminals. Criminals have their buddies who don't have a record buy them for them.

What I am saying Cal is that criminals end up being similarly armed as the general populace, because that is what is 'available'.

For instance they don't have fully automatic weapons because they aren't generally in circulation. You probably don't have one, so the guy holding up the convenience store down the street probably doesn't have one.

This isn't 'offensive' as you are quick to label Cal - it is a fact of life when you allow gun ownership in the population. It is what we say is 'ok' when we protect our second amendment. I understand that allowing me to have a gun, allows criminals to have guns. I also understand that if I am not allowed to have guns, criminals will have them anyway. I wish to protect the 2nd amendment for that reason, and many more.

Or you're demonstrating your absolute contempt for regular Americans. As though they don't have the common sense to pass reasonable laws. That those people are so stupid, they need someone like you, to intervene and monitor the behavior of the state.

And if it's not guns, it's their dietary salt intake. Another issue you've decided that massive government intervention is appropriate.

And once again you jump to irrational conclusion based on what - my liberal stands on some things - I no more want people's salt intake to be regulated than you Cal. What I wanted was that we should be informed about the amount of salt that is in our food. Quit lying about me and what my 'stands' are Cal -

I have an idea... why don't we just make murder illegal. Then we won't have any of these problems!

And lets make that idea even better by killing murders - that will really stop it from happening -

Cal - you are on some irrational bent at this point - why? This is where gun right advocates always fail. They get irrational, start spouting out weird things, and then the left points and says 'stupid, irrational gun people'. I am not irrational about gun ownership. I very much want to protect the 2nd amendment, and I am very rational about why. I understand why certain restrictions are placed on the 2nd. I don't have to bring in salt intake when I am arguing why I believe we should be allowed to keep guns, why guns are important to defend me, my family and my property.

But to be clear, while you claim to be pro-constitution and pro-gun rights, you are simultaneously making arguments that are mislead and ANTI-constitution, ANTI-federalism, and ANTI-2nd Amendment....

Cal - where am I anti-constitution? I support the second amendment, I own guns, I don't plan on giving them up. I however understand that there are limits to the 2nd, that we have drawn lines in the past, and we will continue to draw lines in the future. I understand that with liberty comes great responsibility, do you?

Anti-federalism? Because I think that some gun laws should be nationwide? I think my Texas/Minnesota argument was quite good - if you actually understood it Cal. Maybe you can go back and review it now.... The idea that automatic weapons are highly regulated, nationwide, is a good thing.

Anti 2nd Amendment - once again Cal - just because I see the amendment as being for defense of life and property, and not as an open door to arm the populace against the government (mostly because at this point it is infeasible to do so - we cannot arm the citizenry to the level of the military, that is just foolish-I would say that maybe the founding fathers might have thought this way - heck, they just overthrew a government, but they also didn't see into the future where creating parity between the citizens and the government would involve weapons of mass destruction), means I see it differently - not that I am against it.

Actually an armed citizen can STILL protect themselves and their liberty for much longer and with much greater success than an unarmed one. Your statement presumes an awful lot and it's not a scenario I have an desire to wargame.

Yes they can - and good for them. They own the gun, they have options. I am not taking those options away Cal.

But more interesting that is your sentiment.
That the people are powerless against the government.
That those in and around government are necessary to run our lives because normal people are much too stupid.
And that federalism is a thing of the past and shouldn't be considered any longer.

We are not powerless against the government - and that is where you are very, very wrong Cal. We are the government, We the People. We vote them in, we pressure them to create law and policy that reflects us. I understand where federal law can be effective, and where it is bunk. But, I don't discount it entirely - in this case - with gun control, some restrictions need to be nationwide. Gun carry/conceal - never. That is a very state issue - because you are only dealing with what happens within that state. Heck, I think that you even go down to counties in that case, or local jurisdiction. Gun purchasing - very different, because of how easy it is to transport those guns across state lines.

How sad you are Cal. This is the greatest nation on earth - we allow our citizens to defend themselves with words, the most powerful 'weapon' anyone has. And then, we also allow our citizens to protect themselves, their family and their property with firearms, a right our founding fathers knew needed to be protected and did so in the 2nd Amendment. However, they also knew how much more important 'words' were - and used the first amendment to protect that most important of rights.

You continue to imply that I am not a good American - how dare you. That is what exactly is wrong with the right today. If you don't mirror their ideals, then you are anti-American. How wrong that is. You aren't a bad American because you see things differently than I do. You are a great American for voicing different opinions, different ideas, than I have. We are what makes America - you and me Cal - our opinions and our ideas, together. We compromise, we argue, we throw barbs and insults, but in the end it is the people, diverse and different, that combine to make the USA the best place.

 

[shagdrum]

However, if you look in the case of automatic weapons - we really don't have many crimes being committed with them, why - because they are very difficult to get.

You can not attribute it to automatic weapons being "harder to get" as you do with any degree of certainty. There is no basis for that assertion especially with the implication of your statement that this is due to regulations.

How do you know they are categorically harder to get or simple relatively harder to get then hand guns (there is a difference)?

How do you know that it is a function of being "harder to get" and not a function of the fact that hand guns are easier to conceal on a person?

How do you know that the guns being harder to get is not simply a function of scarce resources (easier to find and steal handguns, shotguns, rifes, etc.) and not a function of regulation?

 

[shagdrum]

Because criminals get armed exactly as the citizenry gets armed.

Why do you assume equivalence so quickly? Reality shows this not to be the case. Criminals get armed faster then the citizenry. Restrictions only hurt law abiding citizen.

To those who don't respect the law (and most gangbangers today fall into that category), legal restrictions mean little because the channels they get guns are illegal, and legal consequences to them illegally owning a gun are of little concern because of that lack of respect for the law.

 

[foxpaws]

You can not attribute it to automatic weapons being "harder to get" as you do with any degree of certainty. There is no basis for that assertion especially with the implication of your statement that this is due to regulations.

How do you know they are categorically harder to get or simple relatively harder to get then hand guns (there is a difference)?

How do you know that it is a function of being "harder to get" and not a function of the fact that hand guns are easier to conceal on a person?

How do you know that the guns being harder to get is not simply a function of scarce resources (easier to find and steal handguns, shotguns, rifes, etc.) and not a function of regulation?

Case in point - the tommy gun. Popular among gangsters and other criminals in the 20s and 30s. Legal to purchase, in fact, easy to purchase, so, guess what - the iconic, and correct, image of the mob boss wielding a submachine gun was born. The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, among countless other crimes, were committed with tommy guns.

Move ahead to after they were made difficult to purchase - no longer do we have criminals wielding submachine guns or fully automatic weapons. And if you don't think the boys in the hood wouldn't jump at the chance to acquire a nice, small Skorpion or Glock 18 (your idea that fully automatic weapons can't be small isn't correct), or that the mob wouldn't jump at the chance at an ST Kinetics or a Tippman, than you are soooo wrong.

They are difficult to acquire for the general populace, so therefore are difficult for criminals to get them as well.

 

[Calabrio]

And you are so annoying when you think linearly Cal -

You've just backed off your hypothetical and reframed it completely.
I guess you just find me "annoying" when I call you on your rhetorical shell games. That's demonstrated by your last post and another one of your disingenuous, offended, victim responses.

What I am saying Cal is that criminals end up being similarly armed as the general populace, because that is what is 'available'.

No, what you asked what would happen when the people of Texas allow mentally deranged criminals purchase fully automatic weapons legally and took them out of the state....

This isn't 'offensive' as you are quick to label Cal -

Actually, that is quite offensive.
The implication being that the people of Texas can't be trusted to make responsible laws on their own. That they are such zealots that they'd readily arm mentally deranged criminals from out of state...

Your condescension is disgusting.

I understand that allowing me to have a gun, allows criminals to have guns.

No. Protecting your right to defend yourself with a firearm DOES NOT ALLOW criminals to have guns illegal.

And once again you jump to irrational conclusion based on what - my liberal stands on some things -

I very clearly come to evident conclusions based upon your words.
You get awfully testy when called on it.

This isn't the first time we've communicated, you have a history.
You have self-identified yourself as a progressive, in the mold of the early 20th century. That's a quite specific definition, we both know what that means. And it's not the same as just going "I'm a liberal." Or simply calling yourself a progressive because you think it sounds cooler than liberal and that Republicans are mean.

I no more want people's salt intake to be regulated than you Cal. What I wanted was that we should be informed about the amount of salt that is in our food. Quit lying about me and what my 'stands' are Cal -

Right.. forgive me if I seek to clarify your well crafted propaganda.
You don't think government should mandate things like sodium in restaurant food, but they should make the information available. When pressed, you said it might be voluntarily provided..

However, you've also, repeatedly argued that since we have so much social welfare in this country, that you, or the government, have a right to make rules dictating how people live because of the economic burden they will impose upon us all collectively.

As with most things you argue, you inevitably contradict yourself.

And lets make that idea even better by killing murders - that will really stop it from happening -

We absolutely need to enforce laws associated with gun crime.
And this pro-capital punishment take is consistent with your Progressive ideology, not generic "liberalism."

Cal - you are on some irrational bent at this point - why?

Absolutely not.
YOU have been trying to shoe horn revolutionary issues into this conversation all along. I called you on it many posts ago.

Anti 2nd Amendment - once again Cal - just because I see the amendment as being for defense of life and property, and not as an open door to arm the populace against the government

Again, this is an example of YOU making this a discussion focusing on some kind of revolution. You've been trying to take the conversation into that specific direction all along.

Defending your liberty applies against criminals, regardless their intention or status. I don't need to distinguish a tyrant from a rapist, the PRINCIPLE is what should be discussed, NOT every worst case scenario. It's just not productive.

We are not powerless against the government - and that is where you are very, very wrong Cal.

You are a shameless.
YOU implied that we were powerless against the government, NOT me.
It's amazing how little decency you. You dishonestly project YOUR sentiment upon me, then launch into a very shallow lecture that is supposed to pass for patriotism.

I understand where federal law can be effective, and where it is bunk.

But what you fail to recognize is where federal laws are APPROPRIATE or constitutional.

To correct something else, I'm not arguing that that everyone should be capable of arming themselves with stinger missiles or line their driveways with claymore mines. That's another strawman you've injected into the conversation.

That is a conversation that we COULD have had, but one your seemingly not capable of. If you had been interested in that, you would not have proposed the idea that Texas would have absolutely reckless and dangerous state regulations that would permit out of state, mentally deranged, criminals to walk in gun stores and immediately walk out after buying full automatic weapons.

In doing so, you demonstrated that you had no interest in having an honest conversation, and you showcased your progressive, anti-federalist arrogance and hostility towards the ability of the states to make intelligent laws.

How sad you are Cal.

How sad it is to operate in lies, to thrive in deception.
To knowingly advance a social and political agenda incrementally in the shadows, knowing full well that, if exposed, you're ideology would be rejected.

And the nerve of you to launch into a personal attack implying what? That I think we should use the 2nd Amendment as a political tool? Is that the false impression you were trying to make? You are a contemptuous fraud.

You continue to imply that I am not a good American - how dare you.

I'll go one farther. I don't think you're a good person based upon your lack of integrity.

We are what makes America - you and me Cal - our opinions and our ideas, together. We compromise, we argue, we throw barbs and insults, but in the end it is the people, diverse and different, that combine to make the USA the best place.

No. You are not.
And I've demonstrated why.
You do not have these discussion or debate honestly. You engaged in a number of very dishonest, very dishonorable rhetorical devices your reply to me which make my skin crawl.

You veil your intentions, your motivations, and your ultimate goals because you know that they are contrary to the basic values that most Americans share. You are a political animal and I mean that in the worst way possible. I have no respect for that.

I have respect for people that I disagree with who express their ideas confidently and honestly. Who enjoy challenging their believes in HONEST debate. I have no respect for what you do.

 

[04SCTLS]

You can not attribute it to automatic weapons being "harder to get" as you do with any degree of certainty. There is no basis for that assertion especially with the implication of your statement that this is due to regulations.

How do you know they are categorically harder to get or simple relatively harder to get then hand guns (there is a difference)?

How do you know that it is a function of being "harder to get" and not a function of the fact that hand guns are easier to conceal on a person?

How do you know that the guns being harder to get is not simply a function of scarce resources (easier to find and steal handguns, shotguns, rifes, etc.) and not a function of regulation?

Handguns are the more practical weapon used by gangbangers.
They are small. easy to conceal and easy to use.

Larger guns are more unweildy and impractical to conceal.

 

[Calabrio]

There's no denying that federal or local laws reducing the supply of specific weapons will reduce the availability. But this won't make us safer, it will also just lead to criminals finding an alternative.

Criminals don't use Tommy Guns because they are huge, inaccurate, and very expensive. Also, because there are abundant alternatives available that are less expensive.

Banning the Tommy Gun didn't end mob crime. Nor did it cause Mob related violence to go down. They simply used different weapons.

But if we ban all handguns, then common criminals will likely resort to using long guns.
So the honest citizen will be unarmed and at a disadvantage when the criminal approaches him with a sawed off shotgun or rifle.

And if we ban the long guns?
They'll either make zipguns or use more primitive weapons.
And I'd still like the ability to shoot the guy in my house before he's within 20' of me. You're just as dead if someone crushes your skull with a hammer as you would be if you were shot.

 

[foxpaws]

You've just backed off your hypothetical and reframed it completely.
I guess you just find me "annoying" when I call you on your rhetorical shell games. That's demonstrated by your last post and another one of your disingenuous, offended, victim responses.

Nope - it is exactly as I framed it - if you allow certain types of weapons to be purchased in certain parts of the country - than criminals throughout the country will have those weapons easily available.

No, what you asked what would happen when the people of Texas allow mentally deranged criminals purchase fully automatic weapons legally and took them out of the state....

Nope - I stated

If we allow UZIs (or say the people of Texas allows them) to be available for the public to buy - with the same restrictions Texas puts on semi automatic handguns, then they will be in 'circulation'​

See - cal - there is no where I state that criminals would be allowed to buy them - Texas, in this hypothetical case, would be restricting the purchases just as they do for semi automatic handguns, which includes restrictions that don't allow criminals to buy them.

But, what happens, just as it has happened with semi-automatic handguns, is that once the weapon gets into circulation than there are fairly easy opportunities for criminals to get them - in the way I stated before, stealing them, finding gun dealers that will look the other way, or having others buy them for them.

Actually, that is quite offensive.
The implication being that the people of Texas can't be trusted to make responsible laws on their own. That they are such zealots that they'd readily arm mentally deranged criminals from out of state...

Your condescension is disgusting.

And you framing my argument in this totally wrong (and you know it is wrong cal - you are a bright man) is what is disgusting.

No. Protecting your right to defend yourself with a firearm DOES NOT ALLOW criminals to have guns illegal.

I don't understand this statement.

I very clearly come to evident conclusions based upon your words.
You get awfully testy when called on it.

And then you didn't read very closely - I very distinctly stated that in my hypothetical case restrictions would be similar for purchasing semi automatic handguns. I in no way stated that the state of Texas would be approving laws that would allow criminals to legally acquire guns. I was very clearly stating that if the guns are out there, then criminals will acquire them, by illegal methods.

This isn't the first time we've communicated, you have a history.
You have self-identified yourself as a progressive, in the mold of the early 20th century. That's a quite specific definition, we both know what that means. And it's not the same as just going "I'm a liberal." Or simply calling yourself a progressive because you think it sounds cooler than liberal and that Republicans are mean.

Your continuing to look for labels for me is quite interesting. I know why you do it, but it is still interesting, wrong, but interesting. It is a very lazy way to discuss things. I didn't take you for lazy cal.

Right.. forgive me if I seek to clarify your well crafted propaganda.
You don't think government should mandate things like sodium in restaurant food, but they should make the information available. When pressed, you said it might be voluntarily provided..

However, you've also, repeatedly argued that since we have so much social welfare in this country, that you, or the government, have a right to make rules dictating how people live because of the economic burden they will impose upon us all collectively.

As with most things you argue, you inevitably contradict yourself.

This is really for another thread isn't it cal? This thread is about the 2nd.

I advocate that if you eat a ton of salt, end up with a ton of health problems because of it, I shouldn't have to bear the burden of fixing you.

I stay very true to my stands - self responsibility. And if you expect the government to fix you, I expect that you should pay.

I worked hard reforming Welfare under this same premise - I will help you up - I will help you get out of your situation. But, I will not support you if you aren't willing to work at supporting yourself. I will insist on time frames, and if those time frames aren't met, I will stop helping you.

We absolutely need to enforce laws associated with gun crime.
And this pro-capital punishment take is consistent with your Progressive ideology, not generic "liberalism."

Actually Cal, I am for the death penalty (very un-progressive of me isn't it) - I just know it doesn't really deter the crime of murder that much. I accept that, and argue for the death penalty on other grounds. Once again - why would you jump to the conclusion that I wasn't for the death penalty? Oh, that is right - you need to label me, and gosh, of course liberals and progressives aren't for the death penalty.

Again, this is an example of YOU making this a discussion focusing on some kind of revolution. You've been trying to take the conversation into that specific direction all along.

Defending your liberty applies against criminals, regardless their intention or status. I don't need to distinguish a tyrant from a rapist, the PRINCIPLE is what should be discussed, NOT every worst case scenario. It's just not productive.

OK, finally - I egged you to this point - you don't see the 2nd as a door to the people taking up arms and overthrowing the government. I never knew that Cal. Show me where you stated that. That is a line. There are some who think that is a big part of the 2nd amendment - an armed populace being able to overtake the military.

So, do you have other 'lines' regarding the 2nd?

 

[shagdrum]

They are difficult to acquire for the general populace, so therefore are difficult for criminals to get them as well.

Again this is an assumption and not one even logically supported by your cherry picked facts.

Tommy Guns were used in a specific time where crime was very organized and very bold and geared toward a specific direction.

The times are much different today, with newer technology and a different focus in crime. Hand guns are generally more convenient.

Also, tommy guns were not the norm back then but simply the one of the more sensational, iconic images (made so primarily by hollywood).

Your argument assumes a hollywood stereotype and then assumes your explanation of causation to be true without discount other logical explanations.

 

[foxpaws]

Handguns are the more practical weapon used by gangbangers.
They are small. easy to conceal and easy to use.

Larger guns are more unweildy and impractical to conceal.

Here are a couple of modern day submachine guns... gangbangers would love to have these as they go riding around in that big 300m (a perfect gansters car - I think)

 

[shagdrum]

If we allow UZIs (or say the people of Texas allows them) to be available for the public to buy - with the same restrictions Texas puts on semi automatic handguns, then they will be in 'circulation'​

See - cal - there is no where I state that criminals would be allowed to buy them - Texas, in this hypothetical case, would be restricting the purchases just as they do for semi automatic handguns, which includes restrictions that don't allow criminals to buy them.

You really want to use Texas as an example?!

Most of the illegal guns (especially automatic) from those border states come from across the boarder and they easily filter to other high crime areas when the criminals feel the need to escalate. For most criminal activity today, handguns, shotguns, rifles etc. are simpler.

 

[shagdrum]

Here are a couple of modern day submachine guns... gangbangers would love to have these as they go riding around in that big 300m (a perfect gansters car - I think)

That's nice. It certainly doesn't prove that it is government restrictions that keep them out of criminal hands any more then market forces and more practical alternatives.

 

[foxpaws]

Again this is an assumption and not one even logically supported by your cherry picked facts.

Tommy Guns were used in a specific time where crime was very organized and very bold and geared toward a specific direction.

The times are much different today, with newer technology and a different focus in crime. Hand guns are generally more convenient.

Also, tommy guns were not the norm back then but simply the one of the more sensational, iconic images (made so primarily by hollywood).

Your argument assumes a hollywood stereotype and then assumes your explanation of causation to be true without discount other logical explanations.

sorry shag - there were a lot of tommy guns around in the 20s and 30s - there is a reason they became the iconoclastic image that they became. I can list crime after crime that was committed with them. And yes, even Bonnie and Clyde really used tommy guns.

Submachine guns are now very small - can be concealed in a coat, and believe me, would be a weapon of choice if given an opportunity. That opportunity doesn't happen because we don't allow them to be easily obtained.

 

[foxpaws]

There's no denying that federal or local laws reducing the supply of specific weapons will reduce the availability. But this won't make us safer, it will also just lead to criminals finding an alternative.

Criminals don't use Tommy Guns because they are huge, inaccurate, and very expensive. Also, because there are abundant alternatives available that are less expensive.

Banning the Tommy Gun didn't end mob crime. Nor did it cause Mob related violence to go down. They simply used different weapons.

But if we ban all handguns, then common criminals will likely resort to using long guns.
So the honest citizen will be unarmed and at a disadvantage when the criminal approaches him with a sawed off shotgun or rifle.

And if we ban the long guns?
They'll either make zipguns or use more primitive weapons.
And I'd still like the ability to shoot the guy in my house before he's within 20' of me. You're just as dead if someone crushes your skull with a hammer as you would be if you were shot.

Banning tommy guns changed the playing field - it wasn't easy to mow down a group of people, with a gun. You still can do it with a car or a bomb, but that really doesn't happen all that much.

I am in no way advocating banning handguns, rifles, shotguns, any of that cal - what I continue to say is that we look at weapons as offensive/defensive weapons (like tommy guns, submachine guns, fully automatic weapons) and we treat those 'offensive weapons' differently than we do other weapons. We do that right now. We decided that having tommy guns available to the public (and therefore, eventually to the criminals) wasn't a great idea.

If the shooter in Arizona had easy access to a small submachine gun - similar to the access he had to the semi that he ended up using, there 'could have been' a chance that he would have bought the fully automatic weapon. A lot more damage probably would have been done.

We have drawn a line - society - when it comes to those weapons. Drawing lines within constitutional amendments can work. In this case, it doesn't remove defending your liberty Cal.

 

[foxpaws]

That's nice. It certainly doesn't prove that it is government restrictions that keep them out of criminal hands any more then market forces and more practical alternatives.

I can use the same circumstantial evidence that you do shag-they aren't readily available, ergo, criminals don't have them. Making bombs isn't a 'fast and easy thing' so criminals don't use them. Criminals like easily available, easy to hide things - cost isn't really that much of an issue in regards to this - they often just steal the weapons shag.... Market forces - come on.

Or as a very big proponent of the tommy gun once said...
You can go a long way with a smile. You can go a lot farther with a smile and a gun

 

[foxpaws]

You've just backed off your hypothetical and reframed it completely.
I guess you just find me "annoying" when I call you on your rhetorical shell games. That's demonstrated by your last post and another one of your disingenuous, offended, victim responses.


No, what you asked what would happen when the people of Texas allow mentally deranged criminals purchase fully automatic weapons legally and took them out of the state....


Actually, that is quite offensive.
The implication being that the people of Texas can't be trusted to make responsible laws on their own. That they are such zealots that they'd readily arm mentally deranged criminals from out of state...

Your condescension is disgusting.


No. Protecting your right to defend yourself with a firearm DOES NOT ALLOW criminals to have guns illegal.


I very clearly come to evident conclusions based upon your words.
You get awfully testy when called on it.

This isn't the first time we've communicated, you have a history.
You have self-identified yourself as a progressive, in the mold of the early 20th century. That's a quite specific definition, we both know what that means. And it's not the same as just going "I'm a liberal." Or simply calling yourself a progressive because you think it sounds cooler than liberal and that Republicans are mean.


Right.. forgive me if I seek to clarify your well crafted propaganda.
You don't think government should mandate things like sodium in restaurant food, but they should make the information available. When pressed, you said it might be voluntarily provided..

However, you've also, repeatedly argued that since we have so much social welfare in this country, that you, or the government, have a right to make rules dictating how people live because of the economic burden they will impose upon us all collectively.

As with most things you argue, you inevitably contradict yourself.


We absolutely need to enforce laws associated with gun crime.
And this pro-capital punishment take is consistent with your Progressive ideology, not generic "liberalism."


Absolutely not.
YOU have been trying to shoe horn revolutionary issues into this conversation all along. I called you on it many posts ago.


Again, this is an example of YOU making this a discussion focusing on some kind of revolution. You've been trying to take the conversation into that specific direction all along.

Defending your liberty applies against criminals, regardless their intention or status. I don't need to distinguish a tyrant from a rapist, the PRINCIPLE is what should be discussed, NOT every worst case scenario. It's just not productive.


You are a shameless.
YOU implied that we were powerless against the government, NOT me.
It's amazing how little decency you. You dishonestly project YOUR sentiment upon me, then launch into a very shallow lecture that is supposed to pass for patriotism.


But what you fail to recognize is where federal laws are APPROPRIATE or constitutional.

To correct something else, I'm not arguing that that everyone should be capable of arming themselves with stinger missiles or line their driveways with claymore mines. That's another strawman you've injected into the conversation.

That is a conversation that we COULD have had, but one your seemingly not capable of. If you had been interested in that, you would not have proposed the idea that Texas would have absolutely reckless and dangerous state regulations that would permit out of state, mentally deranged, criminals to walk in gun stores and immediately walk out after buying full automatic weapons.

In doing so, you demonstrated that you had no interest in having an honest conversation, and you showcased your progressive, anti-federalist arrogance and hostility towards the ability of the states to make intelligent laws.


How sad it is to operate in lies, to thrive in deception.
To knowingly advance a social and political agenda incrementally in the shadows, knowing full well that, if exposed, you're ideology would be rejected.

And the nerve of you to launch into a personal attack implying what? That I think we should use the 2nd Amendment as a political tool? Is that the false impression you were trying to make? You are a contemptuous fraud.


I'll go one farther. I don't think you're a good person based upon your lack of integrity.


No. You are not.
And I've demonstrated why.
You do not have these discussion or debate honestly. You engaged in a number of very dishonest, very dishonorable rhetorical devices your reply to me which make my skin crawl.

You veil your intentions, your motivations, and your ultimate goals because you know that they are contrary to the basic values that most Americans share. You are a political animal and I mean that in the worst way possible. I have no respect for that.

I have respect for people that I disagree with who express their ideas confidently and honestly. Who enjoy challenging their believes in HONEST debate. I have no respect for what you do.

Wow - you added a lot and changed it a lot after I answered - why?

However, I would draw your attention to the bolded statement - I never, ever said that - and you need to back off that Cal - that is dishonest.

 

[shagdrum]

sorry shag - there were a lot of tommy guns around in the 20s and 30s

Yeah, the military and war.

there is a reason they became the iconoclastic image that they became.

Yeah, Hollywood.

even Bonnie and Clyde really used tommy guns.

But the Browning was their gun of choice.

Submachine guns are now very small - can be concealed in a coat, and believe me, would be a weapon of choice if given an opportunity.

So, no proof, no logic, just "believe me".

As Cal pointed out, they are also impractical and very expensive due to being very rare. It is first, and foremost a function of supply and demand. Regulations can play a part in that, but only indirectly and they are not the primary reason guns these guns are not common.

The truth is that the vast majority of regulations aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals DO NOT WORK in the way they are intended. The only real effect they have is in keeping supply low and the vast majority of gun regulations are not aimed at doing that.

Most regulations are either aimed at weeding out criminals in the process to get a gun, or keeping certain weapons out of the populace altogether. However, most criminals simply circumvent that process altogether, so those regulations DO NOT WORK in the way they are intended. Instead, what the regulations do is provide the criminals better access to assault weapons when they circumvent the legal process because that is the only way for a civilian to get those weapons.