That clears it up; thanks a ton, olstyn.Originally Posted by olstyn
I have come to agree with your position, personally. Arguing both points (individual *and* collective defense) is clearly the most powerful argument. As well, both points fall in line with Heller.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Can't help but agree with you on this one. Arguably all guns are weapons of war. What's the real-world difference between a deer rifle and a sniper rifle, after all? What's that line that's always bandied about about the M1 Garand? Something about it being the greatest implement of war ever designed or some such? 8-round en-bloc clips fired semi-auto with arguably somewhat questionable reliability vs modern designs, and yet there's no denying that it is/was a weapon of war. Hell, the American revolution was fought with muzzle-loading muskets. If they want to ban all "weapons of war," they'll also need to ban archery, swords, clubs, axes, polearms, machetes, etc. The list goes on and on and on...
All weapons are weapons of war. That’s exactly what the 2A is about. Practically every rifle I can think of started out as a military weapon before some variation of it became popular in the civilian world for hunting, self defense, or competition shooting. The same is true for most centerfire handguns. I agree that pretending otherwise will not help us in the long run.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
Hell, going down that line of thought says that classical Japanese jiu-jitsu is a "weapon of war," to say nothing of the Kendo class at the YMCA. That’s the whole point of anything even remotely "Martial:" of or relating to war, via long association with Mars, the MF’ing god of war. JMO.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
My wife and I had this conversation at lunch today.
Almost verbatim.
I tell you this Betofish asshole has no idea what he's unleashed.
Try this one:
Feel free to steal.
Last edited by Stephanie B; 09-15-2019 at 03:04 PM.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
I have argued this for a long time, that when AWBs surfaced again, the response was to make excuses for them and try to make them nice. Common excuses were that:
1. Guns are tools, like hammers. They were made to just project bullets at high speed. That was stupid and demonstrated a lack of understanding of concept formation. The core concept of a firearm is as a instrument of force. Hammers are not. Used as a weapon is secondary. Stupid argument to make an excuse for having a gun and voids the 2nd Amend. reason for having them.
2. The Modern Sporting Rifle. We own them only for sport! That went many ways. Some sportsmen denounced them as weapons of war. Zumbo and Metcalf, Romney among other supposed gun friendly folks. Having a gun for sport was used as a defense for ownership in the UK and Australia and failed. If you evoke hunting - well, you should be able to hunt with Ruger Model One or a bolt action gun. You don't need a gun with clip of 30 cop killer bullets to take your son hunting (Joe Scarborough) or for your uncle to sit in his deer blind. Most gun owners don't hunt anyway. In some countries, you keep your hunting gun checked in at the gun club.
3. There are not assault rifles/weapons/boombooms, etc. A reasonable point is to show how they are not fully auto. But that's a double edge sword. On a Guns and Ammo TV show, I saw their old farts with a fully auto M4 and a semi. They fired fully auto, that's an assault weapon. Then an identical looking gun, they fired semi. So what, the semi still fires fast - you should see some of my buddies at the carbine matches. The semis still can shoot 30 people in a few seconds. That distinction is meaningless to the general public and again shows the choir does not understand the mind of someone who isn't a gun person. Note that the media is moving towards calling them semi-auto military appearing guns or the like. So folks who continue to harp on the term are as useless as saying you shouldn't' ban 30 round clips as you should call them magazines. Big breakthrough.
4. The reason for the 2nd Amend. Is it self-defense, defense of country or defense against tyranny. Number two isn't reasonable in our time. Folks evoking Yamamoto's quote don't know that the quote is bogus and cannot be traced to any original source. Also, scholarship clearly shows the Japanese never contemplated invading the USA. Another example is Switzerland - and the Nazis. Yes, they had a civilian army and were brave. However, the main variance was that they cooperated in many ways and the big threat was to destroy needed mountain tunnels that the Nazis needed. The Nazis had plans to invade but didn't have to. Consider Sweden - same situation and not brought up as gun heaven. They survived the invasion threat also by cooperation.
Self-defense - we cut our own throat with the 5 is enough mantra, those who carry an extra mag are gun nuts. 3,3,3 and my LCP - no need for an AR with that mindset. Mas points out when ARs are useful in SD but does that case impact the public. It didn't in the old AWB debate. Record Playing Joe thinks Gramps' double barrel is good enough.
Defense against tyranny. My favorite - the possibility of some true dictatorship. Not AOC and Bernie forcing Medicare for All on you. My Humphrey quote in another thread points to liberals understanding this at one time. The use of civilian arms in the Civil Rights struggle, well documented in scholarship, is a great example of defense against tyranny - at the state level. Segregation and Jim Crow were state tyrannies. There is a rise of minority interest in guns because they fear an increase in racism. Problem for the gun world is that the edge of creeping tyranny and lethal racsim may be seen in the prose and speech of OrangeManBad. The NRA has decided for financial success to make him the centerpoint of their raison d'etre.
Killer Mike on Bill Maher (google it) makes this point strongly.
5. You just cannot say - shall not be infringed. Rights are circumscribed all the time. No Deity is dropping from the sky to protect your God Given Rights. Rights are a construct of humanity and not laws of physics. You have to defend them. The Constitution had some pretty crappy things in it dealing with rights. We modified those. Saying you cannot infringe my God given rights - you lose. Folks said that about their slaves. Didn't work out did it?
All these point to we cannot make excuses and futter around definitions concerning the guns. You have to think of what someone who only sees massacres thinks of the guns and why the standard RKBA choir rhetoric won't be enough. In fact, some is counterproductive.
The guns are for lethal force. You cannot excuse them or just say you want them. Adopt the theory of mind (understanding the cognition of others) when you discuss the issue. If you don't, you end up turning them in or burying them in the business as useless items. Unless you want to dig them out to fight Free College for All or Electric Cars.
Now that gives us some leverage in the debate. Some purpose other than sport.fight Free College for All or Electric Cars.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
As far as I'm concerned, LEOs violate the constitution every time they enforce the Gun Control Act. Getting high at a concert or lying on a credit card application 10 years ago shouldn't make you a "prohibited person" who forfeits their constitutional rights.
Bagpipes and tartan plaid were also banned as weapons of war at one time.
Reply With Quote