Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL X (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The government records real property transfers (18+ / 0-)

    Does that mean the government wants to confiscate your home?

    I for one am happy that I can count on an impartial third party to keep my records.

    I would think responsible gun owners would be happy to live in a "well-regulated" society.

    "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change things, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller

    by NCJan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:10:02 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  "well regulated" doesn't mean what you think.. (0+ / 0-)

      Well regulated in historical terms means that a militia board regularly inspects the militia and their equipment to correct any shortcomings.  I.e, do you have a rifle?  Is it functional?  If not, here, take this one instead.  Whats your weight?  Can you run a mile and not pass out?  No?  Ok, please report to the local school gym in the morning for PT until you can run a mile without passing out...

      Yes, I imagine we'd be much better off as a nation of every man 17-44 had regular checkups for fitness.  Think we'd still have as big an obesity problem in America?

      BTW, the local FFL does hold a copy of the record of sale of a firearm, for 20 years.  How do you think the police trace a weapon back to it's last recorded owner?

      I have no problem with going to an FFL for a transfer, even from, say, father to son. Not everyone here will agree with me, but if I had to choice between mandatory registration and madatory use of an FFL for all sales, I'd take the latter.

      You may not like or agree with the RKBA folks here on DK, but of all the gun owners in America we're the ones you're most likely to be able to work with.  Assuming work with doesn't mean "blindly follow" to you.
       

      •  Isn't that odd? (11+ / 0-)

        Because the word "regulate" is used in the Constitution several different times, yet only in the instance of the 2nd Amendment are we supposed to believe it means something completely different from all the other times it's used.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:34:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Huh. Funny. (6+ / 0-)

        But through all my readings in U.S. history, what with having a degree in it and all, I don't recall colonial militias having fitness tests down at the local school gym as being a requirement for membership.  

        Of course, if we want to talk about definitions, "arms" back then also meant something completely different than it does today.

        Back then, it meant most likely a smoothbore black powder flintlock musket.  Vaguely accurate at best out to maybe 50 yards in the hands of a good marksman and capable of about two to three shots per minute in the hands of same.  For better odds of hitting, you could fire "buck and ball", which consisted of adding a couple of pieces of buckshot in when you rammed the ball in while loading.  Sort of a minor shotgun effect.

        Or you could have a rifle, but since they were hand made and the rifling was difficult to do, they were expensive and relatively uncommon.  They were much more accurate and had longer range than the smoothbore musket, but because the minie ball so commonly used in the Civil War still hadn't been invented, loading was slow and even a good rifleman probably would be hard pressed to get off more than single shot in a minute.

        And of course there were cavalry sabers and bayonets.  There were cannon, too, but I don't think even the most insane Tea Partier is claiming everyone should be able to tow a cannon behind their SUV.  But, just in case there are some, these again would be mostly smoothbore and requiring a multi-man crew to fire with any degree of speed.

        So if we want to argue semantics about what was meant by a word in the 1780's, we can go there, but you might not like the results.  I'd completely get behind the idea that Americans can own an unlimited number of black powder smoothbore flintlocks.  

        •  the flintlock was the 'weapon of war' (0+ / 0-)

          at the time.

          If you agree that the founders expected the people to carry muskets, which was the weapon of war of the period, how can you argue that they wouldn't intend for the people of today, to carry the 'weapon of war' of today?

          •  As long as by "people" (4+ / 0-)

            You don't mean slaves.

            Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

            by NCJan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:32:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  funny you mention slaves (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              gun control was born out of fear of armed slaves.

              •  Keep changing the subject (4+ / 0-)

                It may make you feel good, but I don't think you're changing many minds.

                Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

                by NCJan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:31:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  who's changing the subject (0+ / 0-)
                  the flintlock was the 'weapon of war' (0+ / 0-)
                  at the time.

                  If you agree that the founders expected the people to carry muskets, which was the weapon of war of the period, how can you argue that they wouldn't intend for the people of today, to carry the 'weapon of war' of today?

                  by in the middle but all by myself on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:23:23 PM CDT

                  [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                   As long as by "people" (0+ / 0-)
                  You don't mean slaves.

                  Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

                  by NCJan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:32:38 PM CDT
                  [ Parent | Reply to This |  Recommend   Hide ]

                  That was you, right?  asking me if by people I don't mean slaves?
          •  Really? (4+ / 0-)

            Given that our current weapons of war include everything up to and including nuclear missiles, are you saying that the Founding Fathers truly intended for the average man on the street to be capable of annihilating entire cities, if only he had the monetary or technical wherewithal to acquire such means?

            Even if we scale back a bit, the standard "weapons of war" today include such things as Predator drones armed with missiles.  Are you suggesting that it should be possible that the average man should be able to be so well armed that he could blow a hole in a middle school from the comfort of his living room thirty miles away?  Or that the FF's would have not found such a prospect properly horrifying?

            If you're not suggesting that, then you need to modify your argument.

            •  ordnance and munitions (0+ / 0-)

              are not arms.

              Tanks/planes/bombs/ICBMs are not arms.

              A rifle is an arm. an rpg/grenade/stinger missile isn't.

              •  Ah. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo, LilithGardener

                So all those MidEast arms dealers we hear about are just dealing in personal sidearms, are they?

                Gee, who gets to set these definitions?  You?  Can you point me to the definitive Constitutional definition of "arms"?

                You might want to call up the US military, because they seem to have a definition of munitions that differs from yours and includes a lot of stuff you seem to consider "arms" as "munitions" and yet here you are arguing that they are not the same thing at all.  Here's a sample of the United States Munitions List from the Code of Federal Regulations:

                Category I—Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns
                *(a) Nonautomatic and semi-automatic firearms to caliber .50 inclusive (12.7 mm).
                *(b) Fully automatic firearms to .50 caliber inclusive (12.7 mm).
                *(c) Firearms or other weapons (e.g. insurgency-counterinsurgency, close assault weapons systems) having a special military application regardless of caliber.
                *(d) Combat shotguns. This includes any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches.
                *(e) Silencers, mufflers, sound and flash suppressors for the articles in (a) through (d) of this category and
                their specifically designed, modified or adapted components and parts.
                And of course the list goes on into much bigger and nastier weaponry in other categories, but to them it's all munitions.

                Want to take a shot at moving those goalposts again?

                •  Oh, but you're saved (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo, Penny GC

                  You see, the Munitions list defines various firearms (rifles, revolvers, etc), and excludes from the list

                  excludes any non-combat shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer, BB, pellet, and muzzle loading (black powder) firearms. This category does not cover riflescopes and sighting devices that are not
                  manufactured to military specifications.
                  There.  You can own all the shotguns, bb and pellet guns, and black powder firearms you want.

                  After all, they're not "munitions" as defined by the list.

                  Lock and load.  Or rather,

                  "Prime and Load, Handle Cartridge, Prime, About, Draw Ramrod, Ram Cartridge, Return Ramrod, Make Ready, Present!"

                •  arms are a subet of munitions (0+ / 0-)

                  munitions are not a subset of arms.

                  If we were arguing instead that the 2nd amendment read

                  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear munitions shall not be infringed
                  Then yes, you'd have a point with the bazookas/tanks/nukes hyperbole. Tanks/cannon/missiles/etc are munitions and ordnance not a subset of arms.

                  Everything in your list that you quoted is covered, and all if it can be prucaced legally by a civilian.

                  Fully automatic weapons, silencers, short barrel shotguns, and short barreled rifles fall under the NFA act.  You need a 200 dollar tax stamp, a six month (roughly) waiting period and another set of background checks, in addition to other additional laws to follow.

                •  btw, the goal posts never moved... (0+ / 0-)

                  You simply tried quoting sources you didn't understand, and tried to apply them to a context under which they have no merit.

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                    You simply tried quoting sources you didn't understand, and tried to apply them to a context under which they have no merit.
                    Oh. You mean like your comments that there were 1790's era militia boards inspecting local town militias and putting them through PT at the local school gym, and that's totally what the Founding Fathers meant by "regulated" eh?

                    Given the state of State arsenals in 1860 when the Civil War broke out and the fact that no small number of weapons in them were ancient and decrepit holdovers from the Revolution and War of 1812, it doesn't appear there were militia boards doing much of anything, let alone making recruits do pushups and run laps to lose a few pounds.  Generally, being in the militia was much like getting into any fraternal organization, you sucked up to members and worked the Good Ol' Boy network and if they liked you, or you had the right parents or business connections, you were in.  Whether or not they had working guns anywhere was pretty much beside the point, as long as they had something that looked suitably martial they could shoulder for a parade on the 4th.

                    •  you mean mocking (0+ / 0-)

                      the militia board (if it had any relevancy today) as a source of dog-and-pony antics (in modern terms, yes this is where the pt comes in) because some people still use the old prefatory-clause-is-the-only-purpose-of-the-operative-clause argument for the 2nd amendment  is moving the goal posts?  And not trying to (mis)use the old, tired arument that since 2A folks think they can have modern rifles, why stop there, why not say you can have tanks/nukes/etc isn't?

                      I dunno, I guess missing the mockery on my part is in retrospect easy, if you've never been assigned to a garrison unit (where having the poncho rubber-banded to the back of your LBE instead of in your butt pack where it won't fall of can only be expected from a unit commander who never actually goes to the field).  

                      Trying to use "

                      Really? (4+ / 0-)
                      Given that our current weapons of war include everything up to and including nuclear missiles, are you saying that the Founding Fathers truly intended for the average man on the street to be capable of annihilating entire cities, if only he had the monetary or technical wherewithal to acquire such means?
                      to bolster your argument that the founding fathers only intended the people to have muskets, not modern firarms, then attempting to confuse the subject of munitions (tanks et al) and arms to show some kind of logical falacy... no, thats not moving the goal posts what so ever. /mockery (since it was arguably subtle the first time)
                      •  This is (0+ / 0-)

                        getting to be a long conversations, eh?

                        My apologies if you intended the PT comments as mockery, it did get past me.  Probably because on the internet it no longer surprises me when someone has a complete misunderstanding or misperception of history.  (I mean, good lord, we have entire day-long marathons on the so-called History Channel about how aliens built damned near everything!).  :-p

                        And I wasn't trying to confuse the issue with the munitions comment.  Let's note that you brought up the issue of "weapons of war" which is, you have to admit, covers everything in history from a pointed stick on up to the biggest nuke we have.  Once I pointed that out, you started changing the it from just "weapons of war" to then making a distinction between munitions and arms.  I merely provided definitions from Federal Code that showed that arms were munitions.

                        I tip my hat to your logic that arms are munitions but not all munitions are arms, and I'll concede that on consideration that seems to be the case.  Been a long time since I've done Venn diagrams, but that makes sense even to me.

                        I don't think the FF's only intended us to have flintlocks, actually, but quite often the argument around the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution in general) just devolves down to some kind of  (IMO opinion often ridiculous) "original intent" argument where people pretend to know what people living at the end of the 18th Century would think or do about real-world situations in the early 21st.  The flintlock argument on MY part was snark, because it's an attempt to show how ridiculous that Originalist argument can be when taken to the logical extreme and offering another way to look at it -- "The FF's only knew black powder weapons-- therefore it must have been their intent for people to own those".  Or, you can take the argument that they wanted people to be able to protect themselves from the government, so why not a nuke, right?  Because after all, technology now is such that the only sure way to defend yourself from a military a big as the US is to assure mutual destruction.  And Goober and his friends holed up in the backwoods with a shack full of assault rifles dreaming of "defending their rights against the tyranny" aren't going to last long against a drone strike, if the government really decided it wanted to drop the hammer on the people.

                        Obviously, the FF's intended neither of those, and the hard part is for us, now 225 years on down the road, to figure out the best path with the framework they gave us to work with.  And because the Constitution itself was a compromise document hammered together by people from different sections of the country with varied interests, sometimes that framework is unfortunately vague, and because language and meanings evolve over time, we end up with arguments over what constitutes "arms" and "well-regulated" and "militia".

                        •  the good news / bad news paradigm (0+ / 0-)

                          of DK RKBA discussions, as illustrated by everything else above.

                          Good news:  once both sides of the issue get their fill of snark and mockery of the message, both parties to the discussion can usually find common ground and some meaningful discussion can be held, about how to both preserve 2A rights while promoting safety.  We are after all, reasonable and intelligent people here (at least more reasonable then other online communities).

                          Bad news:  Once the snark/mockery starts, it can take a while to let it burn itself out, then when meaningful discussion (finally) takes place, both parties are usually wiped out.  So it ends up being 90% noise and 10% useful discussion (i.e Kossacks talking to one another instead of shouting down one another).

                          I just wish we could just skip past the emotion and snark every time and get to the discussion part sooner.

            •  Me, I'd prefer to keep my nuclear sub anchored (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NCJan, lyvwyr101, Penny GC, SoCalSal

              at the 79th Street boat basin, when I'm not cruising around New York harbor.

              /snark

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:41:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site