The Shootists Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
DulcimerPlayer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 87
Reply with quote  #16 
The largest argument about whether a rifle is a assault weapon vs sporting rifle is a moot point in regards to our 2nd amendment.  The 2nd amendment does not say "in order to preserve the right to hunt" it guarantees the right of people to form militias to protect themselves from the government.  If it came to armed conflict between the people and a over bearing government I for one do not want to be on the side stuck with using single loader "hunting rifles".  And for those who say this view is antiquated and paranoid just remember.  The United States government has:  Used it's population for medical and biological experiments sometimes on entire city populations, Operation Sea-Spray 1950 to at least 1969, used members of it's population for medical studies in which men were told they were being treated for a disease when in truth the study allowed these men to live for years with syphilis even after a cure was known and even preventing them from seeking medical help from other sources, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and even forced over 100,000 US citizens to be transported to concentration camps, their property seized without compensation and locked away for years all in the name of "state security".  Japanese Interment 1942.   So do I love my country and our government, Yes.  Do I wholeheartedly trust my government to do the right thing for it's citizens and am I willing to place all my security in their hands?  Not really.  Remember.. Those that fail to learn from the past are destined to repeat it.
__________________
For bad coffee I play badly, for good coffee I play...well the same as I play for bad coffee, it's all a matter of perspective.
horseapples

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,648
Reply with quote  #17 
The stiletto comparison is an excellent one Dixie. The blades are all but identical in shape and size and look virtually identical, the stiletto is sharpened and able to cut rather than tear so function is different but it's what you do with them that makes the difference, back to gasoline and matches, are you lighting a bonfire or burning a building full of people to the ground.

An old fella in the hospital here pulled a plastic disposable apron out of a dispenser, twisted it into a cord and garotted a nurse with it, woulda killed her too but someone intervened just in time. It's what you do with it. I know the scale is different but why should the principle be? Because of the original design and intended use? Nobody refuses satellite T.V. because the rockets that send them up were designed to bomb London with. A guy ran over a bus que in a van a year or so ago and nobody wanted to blame the van. Why is there this transference for firearms?
Django

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,463
Reply with quote  #18 
I was randomly going through FB posts and came across this. I'm sure that the US public would agree that gun ownership should be tightened .....but maybe not!

There are some views that this is not true posted.

https://thetab.com/us/2016/06/14/i-was-able-to-buy-an-ar-15-in-five-minutes-19833



Here is another relevent  link.


http://tribunist.com/news/when-you-hear-someone-call-an-ar-15-an-assault-rifle-show-them-this/

__________________
I CAME INTO THIS WORLD WITH NOTHING, AND I STILL HAVE MOST OF IT LEFT.
http://www.savoirfaire-jazz.co.uk/index.html
DixiePiobaire

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,536
Reply with quote  #19 
No-one .. well certainly not me .. is arguing with the logic of your point HA .. other than the 'bombing London bit, as the supply of V2 rockets captured by the Allies, and the launch vehicles based upon them, ran out well before TV Communications Satellites were being put up .. and the rockets that did launch them were not based on the V2 design, or fuelling. However, there is an inherent point that you're by-passing .... vans can be used to kill people, as can plastic aprons, gasoline, matches, and a million other, quite often seemingly innocent, items of everyday life. The point is that none of those things were originally invented, or developed, with the express purpose to kill or injure .. be it humans or animals .. they became so through human ingenuity. The reason that, in the untutored public mind, there is an almost automatic transference, is that the firearm was .. and there is no way around that. It may have become an object of mechanical excellence, historic importance and veneration, and artistic refinement, and it may have gone on to be used in various competitive and sporting ways, but none of that can mask its original purpose. Even the knife, which tends to be judged in the same way (as I can testify as one who wears one as part of my national dress), cannot specifically originally be tied to the killing, or butchery, of humans .... though it undoubtedly acquired that purpose very early on in its development.

I personally do not subscribe to that glib transference any more than you do .. but I am absolutely sure that any attempt to protect the many other uses of firearms that have become substantive, and valid, that does not take account of that inherent truth will always be doomed to failure.  

DP        

__________________
You're only lost if you knew where you were going!!
horseapples

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,648
Reply with quote  #20 
Dixie, I was referring to rocket development rather than the actual V weapons and come to that an educated man could similarly put forward the developmental argument applied to firearms for a range of useful devices from aircraft to sat navs and fish finders. A competition rifle is no more intended to persue it's root design than a garmin sat nav is guide a bomb.

The problem is as you point out the flippent ease with which people transfer responsibility from the hand to the tool because of it's root design. A side handle batton is a development tof the Tomfa, a rice grinder handle. Can one argue that it isn't weapon Officer, it's a tool because that is its root design? Highly unlikely. But if you're using a competition rifle for competition the root design is all important and while it wasn't designed to kill anything its root design probably was. That that tells us that principle is irrelevant, what you're doing with it is irrelevant, the deciding factor is the prejudice of the unprincipled, holyer than thou accuser.

The modern European idea that the collective are responsible for the individual and must be controlled, restricted and persecuted in case one might decide to digress is repugnant to me. Where's the British mind set of liberty and responsibility gone?
DixiePiobaire

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,536
Reply with quote  #21 
Ah well, for general Rocket development we'd have to go back to the Chinese .. which would be safer ground, because they invented them, and developed them, as a tool of warfare and entertainment. They didn't usually hit much, but they scared the h**l out of the enemy .. and particularly cavalry, for just as horses will not charge a wall of sharp steel points (as folk from Edward 1st to Marshal Ney discovered to their cost) , they were never keen on stuff exploding around them and making loud screaming noises.

I think I would have considerable difficulty in convincing a Constable, or a Court, that in 21st Century Britain, I had a pressing need to carry an item that only one of its several possible sources identifies with an original rice grinding stone handle .. whilst all the others say it was a weapon from the start. In the far off days of my youth, some of my age contemporaries were wont to carry lengths of bicycle or motorcycle chain about their person, not to mention razor blades behind their lapels and under their collars .. but I don't think they ever had much joy in claiming that they might need to repair their bicycles .. or get an instant shave if they met an attractive female. They were weapons, and everyone knew that, even though not originally designed as such. The same applies today with the ubiquitous Baseball Bat in the boot of a car in Doncaster, or an Ice Axe in a car boot in Lincolnshire (where there are precious few Mountains). Likewise, as you say, a Competition Rifle is not the weapon I'd choose to either take in to the wilderness with me, or go on a rampage with .. but it never-the-less is much nearer to its original roots than any of the other things we've mentioned. The fact that any person, or persons, may never even for a second consider using it for that purpose, doesn't change that in the eyes of those who feel no need to either own a weapon, or perfect their skills with one .. which, whether any of us like it or not, is the bulk of the population in this, and most other, developed countries. I should also mention that the increasing use of human-shaped targets in some gun sports does nothing to lessen that response. Even in re-enactment the denouement is frequently people shooting at each other .. we know its about history .. but it maintains the connection between guns and violence.

Sadly HA, realistically I don't think there is any possibility that the population of this Country will ever support, or vote for, a lessening of the laws covering ownership and use of firearms .. no matter what kind of argument .. reasoned, or raging .. is put up. They simply don't agree. The only hope for the enthusiast and the sportsman is to try to mitigate the effects of such laws where possible .. and my guess is that that will not be achieved by the minority abusing the majority for not agreeing. Taking DulcimerPlayer's post .. the fact is, most British people (not just Politicians) do not believe that they are ever likely to need to rise up with weapons to remove their Government (actually, the original 2nd Amendment did not suggest that the need for Militias was to oppose the US Government .. but rather external 'Oppressors' .. in other words us!) .. nor do they believe that every day society would be improved by allowing people to carry firearms around with them .. indeed, quite the contrary. Hence arguments that re-assure the Public, and seek compromise, are the only hope for all shooting associated pastimes.

DP                         

        

__________________
You're only lost if you knew where you were going!!
DulcimerPlayer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 87
Reply with quote  #22 
Although many have argued the topic I have found no better argument or description of "Free State" than this one.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf

The 2nd Amendment was more than protection from "others" such as England, but from any force that would lead the country to despotism  be it outside or inside forces.  The founding fathers were always concerned about the powers of a standing federal army as history time and time again has shown that too powerful a army often leads to the army and it's leaders taking control over that country. 

__________________
For bad coffee I play badly, for good coffee I play...well the same as I play for bad coffee, it's all a matter of perspective.
DixiePiobaire

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,536
Reply with quote  #23 
I would certainly not seek to question any view of the Amendment held by a US citizen, and a musician to boot!

I merely remarked that in none of the original versions of the 2nd Amendment (most of which are slightly different) does it say anything about the Militia being for the purpose of opposing the Government, either politically or as a standing Army. Indeed, the Government its self subsequently set down in some detail the actual equipment that Militia men should own, and bring to Gatherings. I am well aware that the whole issue of Federal and State standing Armies became a subject of argument, discussion, and interpretation in the years after the Bill Of Rights .. such that someone suggested that the Federal Army should be no more than eighty men .. but these areas of contention were not in the original stated Amendment. Equally, as a Citizen, I am sure that you will know that the Supreme Court has several times, right up until the first half of the 20thC  rendered a view of the 2nd Amendment that was entirely different to that which is the received wisdom now .. especially after District of Columbia v Heller. A lot has depended upon the 'political colour' of the Supreme Court of the day.

DP  

__________________
You're only lost if you knew where you were going!!
horseapples

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,648
Reply with quote  #24 
As usual these days guys I am short on time and long on jobs but Dixie I'd just like to clary one thing for the moment. Guns of every shade and use are all inherently bad because of their original intended use as a weapon but everything from Chinese rockets to sat navs that share the same origin as weapons systems are not inherently bad because of it? Is that what you mean?

What harm can a sat nav do? Well strap it to a drone and you're well on the way to having a low altitude guided missile (remember it was a team of doctors that tried to blow up Scotland's airport) and it's only a matter of time before some smart alec figures that one out. Should we therefore ban, confiscate and place heavy sentences on people that can't read maps?
DixiePiobaire

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,536
Reply with quote  #25 
The simple answer to your first question HA is .. "No".

The difference between primary and secondary purpose is self-evident. I was merely saying that failure to recognise it must inevitably make it impossible for the Shooting enthusiast minority (of which I consider myself part) to communicate with the none Shooting enthusiast majority in a manner offering any hope of improvement in the lot of the former .. which I thought was the objective that we both support.

They already have strapped satnavs to drones HA .. they call them things like 'Reaper' and they're in active use by Armed Forces of several nations including ours. They already are used by advanced active civilian drone flyers .. which is why they've been able to fly across the Atlantic and land in an Irish Bog (though that wasn't a quad-copter style drone). I'm not sure what the Doctors in Scotland have to do with it .. as they used a 4X4. In the event that some private person, somewhere, does commit mass murder by the use of a drone bomb I have no doubt that they will be both confiscated and outlawed .. or licenced within strict boundaries like firearms .. but it will be the drones they hit .. not the Satnavs. The Satnavs, in common with mobile phone networks, can, of course, be eradicated with little more than the flick of a switch should the Authorities choose to. Which is why I personally do not depend upon either.

DP 

 

   

__________________
You're only lost if you knew where you were going!!
horseapples

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,648
Reply with quote  #26 
Baby I'm back! Essay almost complete and 130 bales brought in so I am soon to be posting in full flow again.
horseapples

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,648
Reply with quote  #27 
Dixie, just a fly by visit, I intend to reread and continue this here discussion properly when I have time. In the meantine did you find the Youngstown South Carolina bar spree killing from June last year where (in a carry zone) a guy in unlawfull posession opened up on a crowd wounding 4 before a CCW holder wounded him and stopped the spree? I thought it pertinent because it shares so many features as the Florida incident, other than outcome of course.

Ref the mis named assault weapons and their use. Since 1991the assault weapon ban has come in and expired, the CCW expansion has spread across the country and during that time American civilians have lawfully bought 170 million new guns and the murder rate has halved. I hear the anti's argument that more guns equals more rampaging murder and mayhem but in fact the murder rate has dropped by a half. Murder has dropped so significantly that they now quote gun violence instead of murder so as to include injuries and suicides to boost the diminishing murder figures.

Obama ordered the CDC to investigate this gun violence and, to his disappointment the CDC found that there were a minimum of 16 defensive uses of firearms for every offensive use.

As an example, all be it an unusual one and I hope to God it remains that way, more people died in spree shootings in France last year using illegally obtained firearms than have died in the States during Obama's 2 terms using firearms obtained by any method.

There are now some 30 something thousand gun related deaths in the States each year, mostly suicides. The anti's argue that banning guns would prevent the suicides yet gun free Japan has 3 suicides for every 2 in the States (per 100,000 population) , that's half as many again, South Korea has almost 2 1/2 times Americas suicide rate per 100,000 population so clearly guns don't force people to kill themselves.

The last figures I studied, outdated now in all likelyhood, showed some 2/3 of firearms deaths to be suicides and of the remaining 1/3 a large proportion, some 2/3 were black on black drug related gang violence. That leaves 1/9th of firearms deaths to be shared out amongst lawful defensive use, accidents, violent crime other than black drug related using unlawfully acquired firearms and misuse of lawfully acquired firearms. So the net benefit of controls could be effective on a small proportion of that 1/9th.

It feels disrespectful to mention it so soon and I apologise for it but I feel that is important to this debate to argue that the 84 killed and 200 injured at the weekend in france with a truck exceeds by a huge margin any gun related spree killing that I recall. There will be no calls to ban assault trucks, no mandatory mental health checks or security service screening of truck drivers, no attempt to blame the truck or limit it's geographical direction by GPS engine shut offs, fuel capacity or maximum speed to 5mph in city limits. Clearly the truck was not to blame but another could be used at any wedding, beer festival, street party, New Years Eve celebration etc today, tomorrow or the next day. It is evidently more deadly and easy to obtain than a lawfully purchased semi automatic rifle and nothing will be done to prevent itsrepeated use.
DixiePiobaire

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,536
Reply with quote  #28 
Feel free to expand upon it HA .. but with Officers murdered, on the streets in Dallas and Baton Rouge, and civilians murdered on the streets in Louisiana and Wisconsin, I don't feel it appropriate, or likely to provide any kind of enlightenment, to carry on the discussion.

When I studied Economics, one of the first things they told us was the old adage that there are "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics!" .. there are no totally statistics relating to this subject available in the USA (The Centre For Disease Control probably being the most accurate) and the current Congress has legislated to prevent the gathering of accurate stats for some reason that it would have to justify. However, there are no complete statistics later than 2013 from anyone, according to the US Government and at that point, homicides involving firearms had risen by 26% on the previous year. These figures did not include suicides, deaths from accidental discharge, or other unexplained occurrence.

As to any attempt to link this subject to the awful events in Nice .. 'primary purpose' applies just as it did before .. but with Children laying close to death in Hospitals ..........

DP   

__________________
You're only lost if you knew where you were going!!
horseapples

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 2,648
Reply with quote  #29 
You know mate, you're right. Regardless of my deep dislike for the primary purpose nonsense now isn't the time.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

The messages featured on this board are the personal views of the poster, and as such do not represent TheShootists.co.uk
We ask that you use this board and the information within in a mature and responsible manner. Thank you.