Texas Church Shooting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2017, 09:11 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
Uh... did you miss this qualifier I started my post with?

(11-11-2017 08:11 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(11-11-2017 07:07 PM)SYZ Wrote:  It's difficult for me to appropriately sit in judgment of the apparent American obsession with firearms and their rights of ownership...

That's YOUR opinion.

Our Supreme Court, which interprets the law of the land, has a different opinion.

Yes, it is my opinion. I hope you're not implying that it's inappropriate for me to post it here—with your snide little dig?

I know from numerous of your previous posts that you're a fervent opponent of most state-encumbered gun laws, even at the expense of the deaths of thousands of your own citizens at the hands of firearms—often illegally obtained and possessed, and used for criminal purposes. This latest church shooting with the deaths of 26 people by an unlawfully owned assault rifle is a classic example of this.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
11-11-2017, 09:54 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(11-11-2017 07:07 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(11-11-2017 06:51 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  How do you propose to remedy the situation?

You're long on piss and moan, short on ideas to change anything..

As an "outsider" it's difficult for me to appropriately sit in judgment of the apparent American obsession with firearms and their rights of ownership. To me, a lot of it seems to centre around a deliberate misinterpretation of the more than 200-year-old 2nd Amendment which was intended to allow the arming of a civilian militia—with single-shot muskets of course rather than automatic weapons capable of emptying a mag in 10 seconds.

That is not accurate. The Second Amendment was written to allow the formation of a militia of already armed people by protecting their inherent right to arms.
And those arms were as good or better than what any foe had.

Quote:During the Congressional debates of June 1789, Founding Father James Madison discussed how a [civilian] militia could help defend liberty against tyranny and oppression. (Although later, Madison came to favour the maintenance of a strong standing federal army.)

The two are not mutually exclusive, e.g. Great Britain's Home Guard during the world wars.

Quote:I'd imagine that unless the 2nd Amendment is partially reworded to stop its deliberate misconstruing, the gun lobby and the NRA will have their way.
But I can't see that happening any time soon. Sadly.

It is not being misconstrued by its defenders, just by its critics. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-11-2017, 10:00 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(11-11-2017 09:11 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Uh... did you miss this qualifier I started my post with?

(11-11-2017 08:11 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  That's YOUR opinion.

Our Supreme Court, which interprets the law of the land, has a different opinion.

Yes, it is my opinion. I hope you're not implying that it's inappropriate for me to post it here—with your snide little dig?

I know from numerous of your previous posts that you're a fervent opponent of most state-encumbered gun laws, even at the expense of the deaths of thousands of your own citizens at the hands of firearms—often illegally obtained and possessed, and used for criminal purposes. This latest church shooting with the deaths of 26 people by an unlawfully owned assault rifle is a classic example of this.

Do you not see the contradiction in your own statement?
What additional or new gun-control laws will make those who criminally possess firearms more criminal? Opposing additional restrictions doesn't support or enable the criminals.

N.B. It wasn't an assault rifle.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2017, 10:38 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(11-11-2017 10:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  N.B. It wasn't an assault rifle.

At the risk of stirring a pot, are there real definitions of what an "assault rifle" is or isn't?

I mean the term is tossed around a lot, but is there any concrete standard that says what is and isn't?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2017, 10:52 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2017 11:19 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(11-11-2017 07:07 PM)SYZ Wrote:  To me, a lot of it seems to centre around a deliberate misinterpretation of the more than 200-year-old 2nd Amendment which was intended to allow the arming of a civilian militia—with single-shot muskets of course rather than automatic weapons capable of emptying a mag in 10 seconds.
Is there like..... a set number of times I'm required to debunk this before you stop regurgitating it? I'm serious by the way, some of this shit I debunked 2-3 pages ago.

1.) The person misinterpreting, deliberate or otherwise, the 2nd Amendment is you. The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the individual and is no way limited to solely "militias", a fact which should be obvious by looking at the rest of the bill of rights and noticing that all of them applied to individuals.
Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment was a codification of an already existing law into a right. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 makes it explicate that the people have the right to bear arms for their own protection and this belief is entirely in keeping with the law of the day. The right to keep and bear arms was already the law prior to that, was a normal part of common English law, as the English Bill of Rights of 1689 already had as the law the right to "keep and bear arms for their defence". So it had already been part of common English law for nearly a century when it was enshrined in the Bill of Rights as an inalienable human right.
Lastly, the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals has been upheld numerous times in court (most recently District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and further solidified in McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010).

In order for your assertion that it's a deliberate misinterpretation to be correct would require that the framers ignored current law in the colonies, nearly 100 years of English common law, to have ignored already existant constitutions in the states, ignore their own opinions expressed in personal correspondence, to have lied to the people in the Federalist papers, to have lied to each other during the ratification and debate process, and to have completely rejected the notion that people have a basic right to self-defence which clearly they had not.

2.)No, it was not intended for "single-shot muskets". It was the codification into a right of the law that states that people have a right to keep and bear arms for their own defence which had been a part of common English law for nearly 100 years. There were already weapons capable of more than "single shot musket fire" for years before the Bill of Rights, the founders were aware of them and they were very approving of such weapons. The Belton Flintlock, as I already explained to you in this very thread, was capable of firing 20 rounds in about 5 seconds.

Weapons tech had been advancing rapidly for hundreds of years so the idea that the Founding Fathers were soooo stupid that they couldn't imagine that guns would get more accurate and fire faster is simply moronic. It's also moronic to think that as weapons get more effective and easier for individuals to use safely that the right of self-preservation goes out the window. It doesn't.

3.) Automatic weapons are already banned for the most part so please don't act like they are not when you are trying to make the argument for banning completely different guns.

(11-11-2017 07:07 PM)SYZ Wrote:  During the Congressional debates of June 1789, Founding Father James Madison discussed how a [civilian] militia could help defend liberty against tyranny and oppression. (Although later, Madison came to favour the maintenance of a strong standing federal army.)
That would be the same James Madison who believed, while president, private citizens had the right to own artillery in the form of cannons to protect their ships from attack.

(11-11-2017 07:07 PM)SYZ Wrote:  I'd imagine that unless the 2nd Amendment is partially reworded to stop its deliberate misconstruing....
It already is worded perfectly fine, we don't need to change the wording so it fits what your ignorance of history and law makes you think it's supposed to mean. It is an individual right to bear arms for personal defence, that is what it means now and what it has always meant.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
11-11-2017, 11:04 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(11-11-2017 10:38 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(11-11-2017 10:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  N.B. It wasn't an assault rifle.

At the risk of stirring a pot, are there real definitions of what an "assault rifle" is or isn't?

I mean the term is tossed around a lot, but is there any concrete standard that says what is and isn't?
Yes. An "Assult Rifle" is defined by the US Army as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."

Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode.

From the Wiki on Assult rifle:


Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2017, 12:04 AM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(11-11-2017 11:04 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Yes. An "Assult Rifle" is defined by the US Army as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."

Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode.

From the Wiki on Assult rifle:


Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.

Assault rifles are already banned in the US (unless they are very old guns if I am not mistaken) and I think pretty much everybody can agree it's for the best. Right now, this ban on assault rifle is being partially circumvented by weapons like the now famous AR-15 which is almost identical to an assault rifle minus the select fire capabilities and the addition of accessories like a bump stock which gives back to all intent and purpose an automati fire capability to such a weapon. Considering that assault weapons are banned, it seems logical to me that any accessory that can transform a high capacity rifle back into an assault rifle should also be banned. Not banning such accessories pretty much creates a loophole in the ban of assault rifles.

Beside all quibblings over the 2nd ammendment, a few fact remains. There are restriction to the right to bear arms in the US. The question is, should high capacity cartrige be banned because they represent too much of a threat to the public? In my opinion, yes they should since having at your disposal a weapon that can shot more than 15 rounds without the need to reload with precision, at long range and with great force, pauses more security risk than they are worth. A weapon used for hunting or self defense doesn't require that level of firepower to be efficient. Phasing out those cartriges would be a simple sollution to at least mitigate a bit the damage done in mass shootings or at least prevent them from reaching absurdly high casualty and injured rates like the Las Vegas shooting.

Hand guns are another issue on the opposite side of the spectrum. If AR-15 (and other similar rifles) are very dangerous in mass shooting thanks to their high firepower, pistols, while much less powerful, are even more deadly due to their concealable nature and are the most often use weapon in crimes and suicides. There is a jurisprudence in the USA for restricting or even banning weapons due to their deadly potential and their ease to conceal. It was the case for switch-blade knives for example. Reducing the number of pistols in circulation in the US would help reduce the numbers of pistols involved during crimes as rarity would drive the price of these weapon up and make their owning difficult for low level street gangs that happen to be those who are the most violence prone (well connected richer gangs would have no problem arming themselves, but these tend to use violence more "conservatively"). Most firearms used in crimes (80%) are illegaly possessed. Of these over half of them are stolen weapons and another third are borrowed from a family member, a spouse or a friend. Only a minority of them were bought illegaly on the black market or from a legitimate store, but following a failure of the background check system. To me, the most sensible way to reduce the number of pistols in circulation is to increase the training requirement to own these firearms and tax in excess the pruchase of new weapons of that type accompanied with a buy-back policy for those who would fail to meet the new requirements or who would simply want to renounce their ownership of such weapons.

I don't think the status quo on gun control is acceptable in the US.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
12-11-2017, 12:08 AM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(11-11-2017 11:04 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(11-11-2017 10:38 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  At the risk of stirring a pot, are there real definitions of what an "assault rifle" is or isn't?

I mean the term is tossed around a lot, but is there any concrete standard that says what is and isn't?
Yes. An "Assult Rifle" is defined by the US Army as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."

Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode.

From the Wiki on Assult rifle:


Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.

Thanks WD for the information.

Maybe the US military shouldn't be allowed to decide the definition of assault weapon in weapons for civilian use. I mean saying that only military grade weapons can be defined as true "assault weapons" ... I don't know.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2017, 12:20 AM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(11-11-2017 04:50 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  The worst mistake America made on this issue is reversing the assault ban....

Sorry was there a second Assault Weapons Ban that happened while I wasn't looking or are you talking about the Assault Weapons Ban that ended in 2004 which the 2003 Task Force on Community Preventive Services report, the 2004 National Research Council committee study, that the DOJ and the FBI found had no measurable impact with the DOJ/NIJ study saying that "no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders,"?

The ban that had as it's criteria for banning a gun almost entirely cosmetic features?

During 2003, the last full calendar year of the Assult Weapons Ban there were 390 murders by rifle according to the FBI. In 2014 a full decade after the ban on those weapons ended? 248. Which you might recognize as significantly less than under the ban.
(Oh by the way in 2014 California, the state with the strictest gun control laws, had the highest rate of handgun, rifle, and shotgun murder in the nation.)

It's also relevant to mention that you are 6 times more likely to be stabbed to death then murdered with a rifle, and 3 times more likely just to be punched or kicked to death than murdered with a rifle.

Oh, ya man who would want to give up a success story like that?Rolleyes

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
12-11-2017, 12:33 AM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(12-11-2017 12:08 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Thanks WD for the information.
Happy to help!

(12-11-2017 12:08 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Maybe the US military shouldn't be allowed to decide the definition of assault weapon in weapons for civilian use.
Actually they don't "assault rifle" is an agreed upon term with clear definition both in and outside of the military. "Assault weapon" in a politically and media invented term with no agreed definition designed to obfuscate the public on the difference between a civilian semi-automatic and military selective fire weapons, to make it easier to sell a ban on the former.They use the term "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" interchangeably, and I would argue intentionally, to cause confusion to the general public.

It's actually a term that is so nebulous you can watch it evolve on live TV, as several news outlets and politicians have started to refer to rifles like the semi-auto AR-15 as a "semi-assault weapon" a term that not only doesn't mean anything it doesn't even make sense in English.

(12-11-2017 12:08 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I mean saying that only military grade weapons can be defined as true "assault weapons" ... I don't know.

In fact "military-grade" has nothing to do with how lethal a weapon is or it's ability to full auto fire, it's basically just military jargon for quality control. A weapon is considered military-grade if it can pass the tests the US military puts their weapons through. Most civilian semi-auto rifles (like the AR-15) are actually better than military-grade. Military-grade is synonymous in shooting circles with "shit quality". Made by the lowest bidder haha.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: