I’m surprised, at the expressions of surprise. O’Rourke deserves recognition for at least being honest. A good part of DC on both sides of the aisle shares his perspective, if not his candor.
I’m surprised, at the expressions of surprise. O’Rourke deserves recognition for at least being honest. A good part of DC on both sides of the aisle shares his perspective, if not his candor.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
Good point. It is not hard to find GOP executives, judges, justices, candidates and legislators who have talked the AWB and weapons of war. Nor is it hard to find such folks in the gun world.
The focus on self-defense, that ran through Heller, has weakened the argument for possessing the modern sporting rifle as many don't think it is necessary.
Self Defense was a very important focus because Heller arose as a challenge to the gun laws of Washington DC, which prohibited both handguns as well as keeping a gun loaded in the home. Heller affirmed the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and one that applied to self defense.
As far as self defense goes, as I and other people have said before, citizens have to defend themselves against the same violent criminals who the police are called to deal with, and deserve the same modern firearms because we have to face them alone and do not have back up.
And yet people consider smartphones necessary. The 2nd Amendment is a marketing problem, not a legal one.Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
I’d love to take credit for this reply to the “why do you need that?” question but I can’t, and I don’t even know who came up with it:
“Its a Bill Of Rights, not a Bill Of Needs.”
Thanks for the video. I'm going to play Red Team on this (note I am a firm believer that the 2nd Amend. protects them and have/had one).
1. The video says that SCOTUS has clearly protected the AR. This is not true. It is undecided. Heller was ambiguous with talk of dangerous and unusual weapons and that there are limits to the 2nd Amend. The discussion of M-16s, etc. did not clearly protect the ARs. Lower courts have interpreted Heller as allowing bans on guns and magazines. Some dissents have said they are protected (Thomas, Kavanaugh and others) but they have not carried the day.
2. The AWB halted production - that is not true either. Guns without the cosmetic features that defined the ban were produced in the hundreds of thousands.
3. The AWB had no effect on crime, thus bans are useless. The author did not read or study the fullness of the research. The Koper, et al publications and presentations said that there was no effect because:
a. Existing stocks were so large and grandfathering was allowed.
b. Weapons of equal efficacy were produced (the ARs without grenade launchers, bayonets).
c. They suggested bans on all semis (bye bye Mini-14s) and confiscatory bans of existing weapons.
They did not conclude bans were useless but the AWB as written was useless. Gun people should understand those reports.
4. They are needed for defense but the author doesn't make the case strongly why this level of gun is needed (note, I think it is). The antigun folks argue that it isn't and I posted elsewhere the court decision language stating that and the gun world's own folks who argue that it isn't. Given the highly lethal nature of the gun, the few cases where that level of firepower is used are outweighed by the damage done in rampages (recall, I'm in favor of owning them). Just saying the defense case is not made strongly enough.
The case why the handgun isn't sufficient - it's a broken and short rifle. Huh? The vast majority of successful DGUs are with handguns. People don't carry ARs around town for the most part and most of us think those that do are nuts.
5. The mention of sport - that is a terrible idea. The gun is not a toy or vehicle for entertainment. I posted Rachel Maddow who loves the guns but thinks they are for entertainment and need to be controlled and stored at the entertainment site or checked out for hunting. That is done elsewhere in the world. In the UK and Australia, gun enthusiasts made the case of not banning their 'sport'. Australian men have to have a 'sport' to be manly. It didn't fly. An Australian friend told me that most thought the gun sportsmen were nutters. The 2nd Amend. has nothing to do with sport.
Mentioning defense though and showing the gun is derivative of a military gun does blow away the MSR , nice gun attempt to defend the gun.
You can't make mistakes in presentation and your opponent if more knowledgeable than idiots who spout the thing that goes up or the AR weighs more than 10 moving boxes, will take you apart.
So, this video is more a choir piece, with no offense, as most gun advocates lack a Theory of Mind (the ability to understand the cognitions of others) when it comes to guns.
I would respond with the fact that tens of *millions* of unarmed civilians have perished in genocides over the last ~100 years and that if you want to count how many thousands of lives "could be saved" by gun control, you ought to factor how many millions of lives "could be lost."
Here is snopes bending over backward to claim "mostly false" to the above while actually substantiating almost all of it:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-gun-history/
Last edited by 0ddl0t; 09-28-2019 at 01:30 PM.
Those are the points I would make too!
Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke said "there have to be consequences" for gun owners who do not surrender their AR-15s, which would include police going to their homes and confiscating them.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/julior...-by-l-n2554826
Reply With Quote