Gun Control


John doesn't seem dumb so I don't understand why he doesn't get it. He's talking about the NRA and gun control and he is talking about wanting to repeal the Dickey Amendment which prevents the CDC from using its funds to research gun violence. At this point he is expressing frustration exclaiming that this wouldn't be gun control- it would only enable a way to have a *conversation* (Oliver emphasized "conversation") about it. Honestly, is he stupid? What is the point in having a conversation about something that you will never, EVER agree to?

reply

Maybe he naively believes there's a role for empiricism in this debate despite one side's repeated insistence that their "rights" to guns are non-negotiable, even if it means the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.

reply

Wow more liberal *beep*

reply

It's not liberal *beep* when not even the deaths of school children can initiate genuine change in the debate. Oh and the NRA profits off that inactivity so who's really full of *beep* then?

What's missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals.

reply

What's odd is if the right is so against terrorism why do they refuse any discussion about gun control?

reply

What's weird about that? You plan to nagg the terrorists too? He'll get a gun illegally therefore no laws influence them since they work outside of it. What's weird is that the left is all for background checks (which already exist) and yet they'll let anyone in and allow them to vote without even an ID which every other democratic contry practices: no id, no vote.

reply

He'll get a gun illegally therefore no laws influence them

You're saying it is exactly as easy to get a gun illegally as legally?

and yet they'll let anyone in

Not quite up on that process are you?

reply

You're saying it is exactly as easy to get a gun illegally as legally?


It's almost as though the laws of supply & demand do not apply to firearms. The monetary costs (and legal repercussions) have almost zero effect.

I remember in the last presidential election, Romney said that if we ban guns then criminals will just resort to building bombs, which could prove even deadlier! Yeah, as if were just that easy to build a bomb, especially when someone is drunk or angry.

The problem with this debate lies in the fact folks on one side tend to reach predetermined conclusions via superficially compelling appeals to intuition. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Except criminals tend to be stupid and lazy.

"Most gun fatalities are the result of suicide, so if you ban guns, people will just kill themselves some other way." Except it turns out suicide is a surprisingly impulsive act.

It would be awesome if we could all freely have guns, grenades, and endless lines of cocaine. But we can't because people suck. If you're a good person who wants to play the hero, well, you're more likely to save a stranger (or a family member) by learning CPR rather than carrying a handgun.

reply

I wouldn't want to ban guns, just the assault weapons. I see no need for them to be readily available.

But we can't because people suck.

LOL Can't argue.

reply

What is an "assault weapon"?

reply

In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use.

This is out of Wikipedia but sums up how I perceive the term.

reply

Unfortunately the term "Assault Rifle" is just a made up term, not an industry classification. So when I hear "Assault weapons ban", I just scratch my head. There are muzzle loaders, breech loaders, single action, double action, semi-automatic, and fully-automatic. That's it- there's no assault classification. It's unfortunate that so many weigh in on something they don't know much about

reply

Who used the term assault rifle? I'm sorry the term assault rifle (or weapon for that matter) confuses you. The people I discuss this with know exactly what it refers to. It sure as fvck doesn't mean muzzle loader. Even the people who have a different opinion than me know exactly what I'm talking about. It shows the difference between book smart and street smart. Street smart folk don't need things spelled out perfectly concise like book smart people do.

reply

Okay, can you tell me exactly what an "assault rifle" is?

reply

Touche.

reply

This is my whole point- How can you ban something that you can't define?

reply

The people I deal with know what the reference means. I just personally don't know the benefit of assault rifles outside of warfare. Pistols, rifles and shotguns? I have zero issue with them whatsoever. A ban on all guns is senseless to me. In fact assault rifles have to be a very small percentage of the entire gun population.

reply

What are the criteria that constitutes the label "assault rifle"?

reply

I'm not getting into a technical verbiage discussion with someone who is clearly well educated in that realm. I don't need to be an expert in arms to have an opinion on it either. If you want them to stay legal then I hope the discussion goes deeper than pointing out verbiage errors. By the way, I have no issue with those who want them to be legal. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I think differently of the person.

reply

"If you want them to stay legal"


"Them"- what is them?

Here's what I don't understand about you- How can you be in favor of a ban on something you can't define, but have friends that can? (I mean, what is that?) Also, is your trust in your friends opinions on the matter valid enough reason to enact a law that will make illegal something you yourself can't define?

Surely, looking at this with a detached, logical eye, you can see the absurdity of your position, can't you?

I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

I see what you're saying but I think you're missing the forest through the trees. I'm not totally ignorant on the subject as I completed my gun safety program at 8 years old and shot pistols, rifles and shotguns quite a bit. Never shot an assault rifle but my opinion is the rewards are quite outweighed by the negatives with this particular weapon.

reply

If you can't define what an assault rifle is, how would you know whether or not you'd ever shot one? Let me ask this another way- For argument's sake, let's say they've passed an assault rifle ban. Now assault rifles are illegal. What does that mean? What guns are assault rifles?

I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

When I'm talking this item I'm referring to something like a machine gun. Something that can pop off numerous rounds within seconds. How about 3 rounds a second and 15 rounds or more at a time? Does this sound realistic? Obviously I don't know how many rounds go into various clips.

reply

Oh, in that case, you're talking about fully automatic weapons. Well, you'll be happy to know that those types of weapons are already illegal to sell and own without special FBI collector dispensation. So, at least you don't have to worry about people buying "Assualt Rifles" anymore, since they're already illegal. Yeay!


I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

I guess 12+ mass shootings in the last decade warrant something to be done with weapons that can shoot numerous rounds at a round per second or two. I believe gun shows are a way to get around laws too. Laws can't do much if they don't apply at gun shows.

reply

Machine guns haven't been used in any mass shooting since they were outlawed so what is it that you would have congress do? No gun purchased at a gun show has been used in a mass murder, so all of these thing you are proposing won't fix the problem which could easily be helped if not fixed if you simply stop focusing on the tool and focus on the perpetrator.

I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

Well then you have made a great point. I need to edumicate myself on this whole situation then do what I feel needs to be done with specific information being brought to the correct people.

reply

Thanks. I respect you for that. I don't mind if someone is against something, just as long as you know what it is that you're against. It reminds me of this stunt I saw where these guys were trying to get people to sign a petition to get the state to ban "Dihydrogen-monoxide". Claiming that it's in our water pipes, and food. People were just signing away that petition because they were too lazy to do a little research.

I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

This is the good part of message boards. It's not beneath me to admit I'm wrong and thanks for being patient and discussing with me. Who knows, I may change my stance when I get more information on the whole thing.

reply

Yes, it's nice when an honest disagreement can be had without it resorting to a bunch of name calling. 😀

I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

It's not beneath me to admit I'm wrong and thanks for being patient and discussing with me

wow was he ever more patient with you than i ever would have been. you're afraid of things you know nothing about. as an infantry vet, i'm insulted by the level of your ignorance. you want to ban the guns i shoot pieces of paper with because you can't be bothered to learn the first thing about them?

little hint, when civilians own them, they're called assault weapons.
when the military or the police use them, they're called personal defense weapons.

i couldn't even make that crap up, and this is important, they're NOT EVEN THE SAME F'ING GUN. just because something looks similar, that doesn't make it the same.

finally, the semiautomiatic firearm you're so against, is 100+ year old technology and applies to nearly every modern firearm on the planet including modern revolvers. so when people like you say you want to ban them, you're literally stating you want to ban ALL guns and then you question why us "gun people" aren't willing to engage in any sort of debate with you?

why would we debate with people that don't know the first thing about what they're against?

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

[deleted]

What are guns for?

you're not going to like this 100% factual answer.

that depends entirely on the gun. i have guns that were specifically designed for target practice - they hold and shoot a single .22 round. i have guns that were specifically designed for shooting clay pigeon competitions (that's not what they're called, but let's face it, i had to really dumb it down didn't i?), and i have guns that were specifically designed for hunting.

but you didn't want to hear that did you? you, and people like you, think guns are only designed to kill, when the fact of the matter is that even the gun you're most afraid of, was NOT designed to kill, it was designed to injure. yup, the AR15 modeled after the military M16 was NOT designed to kill.

like i said, you're afraid of things you know nothing about

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

[deleted]

No, you said everything, its only for kill or injuring

so your reading comprehension is abysmal. got it.

, its a piece of metal that explodes and projects another piece of metal, for killing or injuring

that is ONE of many uses, such as shooting pieces of paper which is what one of my guns was specifically designed for - PAPER

why would somebody like this?

i hate golfing, but i would NEVER try to keep others from doing something they enjoy.

If you like guns, even though i dont believe in it, i seriously advise you to get mental treatment

this makes you a terrible person for oh so many reasons.

cause you have serious damages...

look in a mirror. you want to ban something you know nothing about, and call those that are knowledgeable about the subject as being mentally deficient.

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

[deleted]

wow was he ever more patient with you than i ever would have been.

That's why he was good to discuss this with. You're hardly worth the time.

i'm insulted by the level of your ignorance

Likewise.

so when people like you say you want to ban them, you're literally stating you want to ban ALL guns

Thank you for verifying your lack of reading skills.

you want to ban the guns i shoot pieces of paper with because you can't be bothered to learn the first thing about them?

You're amazing. Impossible to discuss with you because even when something is spelled out you twist it into what you want it to be.

then you question why us "gun people" aren't willing to engage in any sort of debate with you?


Yet somehow you missed the debate I had with the other fellow on this exact thread. He took the time to teach me something I was not aware of. You would've spent your time ridiculing me and accomplishing nothing. I know you don't understand the point of that statement.



reply

That's why he was good to discuss this with. You're hardly worth the time.

did it ever occur to you that i've simply had more contact with people like you? for example, take a look at the other comment that responded to me...

i'm insulted by the level of your ignorance


Likewise.

please point out a single incident where i have shown my ignorance when it comes to this topic... just one will do...

so when people like you say you want to ban them, you're literally stating you want to ban ALL guns


Thank you for verifying your lack of reading skills.

you mean like when YOU stated:
I wouldn't want to ban guns, just the assault weapons. I see no need for them to be readily available.

again, assault weapons as you put it are simply semi-automatic weapons, a 100+ year old technology. nothing more.

you want to ban the guns i shoot pieces of paper with because you can't be bothered to learn the first thing about them?


You're amazing. Impossible to discuss with you because even when something is spelled out you twist it into what you want it to be.


you literally and specifically stated that you see no need for a gun i shoot pieces of paper with to be readily available to me. you want to ban something you know nothing about. YOU are impossible to discuss with as i'm quoting you, and twisting nothing

Yet somehow you missed the debate I had with the other fellow on this exact thread. He took the time to teach me something I was not aware of. You would've spent your time ridiculing me and accomplishing nothing. I know you don't understand the point of that statement.

and you seemed to miss MY point, which is that i HOPE you're as good as your word. i HOPE that you'll actually educate yourself about this topic before blindly voting to ban things you know nothing about...which is what YOU said you wanted to do.
my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

No need for trolling and baiting...

that's clearly what you're doing

You can shoot whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that its a piece of metal that explodes and projects another piece of metal, for killing or injuring, or in your case shotting paper...hahahaha
[/quote}
according to you i can't or at the very least shouldn't be able to do shoot whatever i want as you want guns banned. at least you've finally admitted that not all guns are designed to kill (as most military guns aren't). finally, why is shooting paper funny to you?


[quote]Your analogy is wrong, golf isn't design for killing, try again...

fine, i don't like fishing or bow hunting, but i would NEVER try to ban them. meanwhile, you simply sidestepped the point, and you know it

side note, you better be a vegan, or your hypocrisy knows no limit


Please, elaborate...

the fact that you don't get it now, means you never will

Serious, you should try to undersatand why you think its sooo cool to "know" about guns...

i'm an infantry vet. assuming you pay taxes, you spent quite a bit of money training me to know about guns. it's not cool to know about guns, but it is certainly NOT cool to revel in ignorance about something you know nothing about which is clearly what you're doing.

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

[deleted]


i can't see why, i'm being extremely polite with you

LOL - followed up by...

i don't wanna share the same space with you


Yes you live in a society

and that society has said for hundreds of years, through the bill of rights, that WE as a society value our 2nd amendment just as much as our 1st. you're free to not like certain aspects of our society, but the second you start trying to deny me my rights, start telling me that you don't even want to share the same space with me, then you're in the wrong society, and YOU are the one that needs to find a different society

knowing that you have a gun, i don't trust you, you wanna have guns go live by yourself, in a society, you can't do whatever you want...

why? what does me having a gun have to do with whether or not you can trust me? do you trust cops? the military?

i used to live in california, a very unfriendly society when it comes to guns, so i moved to nevada which is a much better society for me. and yet you're still wrong, even in california, i have a societal and constitutional right to be able to own guns, you're free to not like that, but you're not free to kick me out, take my guns, or insult my very existence because we share different beliefs. finally, i'm not doing whatever i want, i'm following the law. you just don't like the law

Come on, you're using a piece of metal that explodes and projects another piece of metal, so you can hit a piece of paper. You can see the irony in such stupidity, can't you?

you don't understand what irony is. that aside, i also ski. i take two long pieces of plastic sticks, and ski down very long and steep mountains. that's neither stupid nor ironic, it's simply my hobby.

fishing and hunting, are as stupid as guns...

sigh...
I'm not a vegan, i can't see the relation, please elaborate...

there is no helping you and your ignorance

yes im a hypocrite, we all are, there's nothing wrong with that, at least i'm able to admitt...

there is everything wrong with that, and many people including myself aren't hypocrites. we're ideologically consistent. it really isn't that hard

You can try it, im a very smart person...

clearly not...
i think its cool to not know something

i rest my case


my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

[deleted]

always with the same BS, something it was said hundreds of years ago, when we didnt have basic healthcare, nor technology, one third of the life expectation compared to now...
Yeah, those are the guys that you should listen, who cares about development right?

so what would you like to do? create a whole new system of government? because you now we're a constitutional republic right? that constitution is sort of a big deal and defines our entire society. but yeah, you know better. have you even read the constitution? ever? i doubt it. you know twice as much about the constitution as you do guns, you're still a far behind the curve

"i don't wanna share the same space with you, knowing that you have a gun", not that i dont wanna share the same space with, period, there's a huge difference...

hardly

Its not you, i dont trust the human being, i dont even trust myself, but again, they didn't programmed you to think about grey areas, they programmed you to think that everything its black and white...

so you don't trust the police either, got it. you're an extremist.

sigh, they didn't program me with anything. people don't get programmed you moron, they get trained or educated, neither of which have you ever experienced. i spent four years in the infantry in order to afford college. i now have masters degrees in english and education (again, read the signature line), but all you see is a "gun nut" programmed to kill by the military. you're an ignorant, pompous, and foolish child that is only seeing YOUR world in black and white. again, you're a hypocrite.

Yes you're, is kinda like saying you dont lie, thats a lie, but im able to admitt, cause i have no proud, unlike you (i.e. "but it is certainly NOT cool to revel in ignorance about something you know nothing about", the famous Mr. Know-it-all).
fix the spelling and grammar, and then i'll tackle this mess of a comment




my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

[deleted]

No, not everything, but it has to change a lot, again

by all means, what three things to the constitution would you like changed?

its called development...

A - not all change is development
B - not all development is good
C - not all change is good

I don't trust people, period, not even me, but you wasn't programmed to understand that right? people with discipline don't change, they are like robots right?

sigh, you're more of an extremist than i thought

Not only to kill, the military brainwash tackles a lot of other subjects too...

you don't know anything about guns or the military - got it

never let your ignorance stand in the way of you having an opinion....sigh...

I pasted it from your comment, so its on you bud...

no you didn't. those were all your words. fyi, in that sentence, the proper usage is "it's" not "its"

just for kicks, how old are you? what's your highest level of education? normally i wouldn't resort to such questions, but the pride in your ignorance is shocking to me
my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

you literally and specifically stated that you see no need for a gun i shoot pieces of paper with to be readily available to me. you want to ban something you know nothing about.

The following is exactly what I said earlier in this thread:

I just personally don't know the benefit of assault rifles outside of warfare. Pistols, rifles and shotguns? I have zero issue with them whatsoever. A ban on all guns is senseless to me. In fact assault rifles have to be a very small percentage of the entire gun population.

So keep twisting my words and prove you need to lie to make a point. I'll also tell you what, not knowing the exact correct label for an item does not make one an idiot in the whole field. I went through gun safety as a child and shot skeet and hunted when I was younger so you saying I know nothing about guns is another assumption you make that is wrong.

One last thing, you have poor grammar skills. Does that mean you know nothing about conversation?

reply

I just personally don't know the benefit of assault rifles outside of warfare.

you're in luck, because they aren't used in warfare either...

So keep twisting my words and prove you need to lie to make a point.

i'm not lying, nor am i twisting YOUR words. you just can't grasp the logical conclusion of the things that YOU are writing

I'll also tell you what, not knowing the exact correct label for an item does not make one an idiot in the whole field.

it does when the only part of the field you want to talk about is the one you don't know anything about

I went through gun safety as a child and shot skeet and hunted when I was younger so you saying I know nothing about guns is another assumption you make that is wrong.

oooooh as a child?! how old are you now? when was the last time you touched a gun? saw a gun in person? shot a gun? i took german as a child, guess what, i don't speak a word of it now which is why i never bring it up. it's something that has zero bearing on the knowledge i have today.

you have poor grammar skills

point of fact, i have a masters in english. despite my speed and apathy when typing in an online message board, my grammar is spectacular by blogging standards. not using capital letters isn't poor grammar. but by all means, show me where i have used poor grammar (that wasn't the result of an obvious typo)
my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

oooooh as a child?! how old are you now? when was the last time you touched a gun? saw a gun in person? shot a gun?

Let me slow this down for you (despite the fact you'll still twist everything to fit your own needs). I was a child of 7 when I took my gun safety classes. I then hunted and shot skeet for years (decades) afterwards. I currently own 2 guns. Anything else you need to know? Actually don't bother. You'll twist it and make countless other assumptions that are incorrect and hold yourself absolutely unaccountable for your actions. You don't even know how it makes you look when you actually ask someone there age on a message board.

my grammar is spectacular by blogging standards.

That's quite a standard you hold yourself to.

that wasn't the result of an obvious typo

Wow. LOL

Good day sir. Take your last digs at me if you may but I am done with this for obvious reasons on both sides. I hope the best for you moving forward.

reply

couldn't point out a single time - got it

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

Just reading through the thread...I got to ask, why are you even responding to that moron Brclpp?

But whilst I accept you were gracious in your replies, I think you sold yourself short, and you were not wrong in what you were saying to that other poster.

Assault rifle is clearly defined term, and refers to the type of guns that can select full auto. Those guns look exactly like the civilian versions which don't have full auto, but when describing the look of a gun, assault rifle gives people a clear idea what sort of gun you are talking about.

Its like saying an SUV is a 4x4 when its only the 2 wheel drive version...everyone knows what a 4x4 looks like, even if the function isn't the same. So when describing a gun, assault rifle is a valid description. In terms of laws banning them, those laws would have to name each make and model that is to be banned, and have strict guidelines on what new weapons could or could not feature. Its not perfect, but then you wont get to a perfect situation with gun control in USA...that horse has bolted and is halfway round the world by now!


"Don't you hear that horrible screaming all around you? That screaming men call silence."

reply

Assault rifle is clearly defined term, and refers to the type of guns that can select full auto. Those guns look exactly like the civilian versions which don't have full auto, but when describing the look of a gun, assault rifle gives people a clear idea what sort of gun you are talking about.

so many factually incorrect statements i don't even know where to begin. ONLY civilians that don't know anything about firearms call them assault rifles. it's the civilian versions that look like the military versions, and not the other way around. assault rifle has NOTHING to do with whether or not the weapon is full auto or not - by the way, the military M16 isn't a fully auto weapon either - only in hollywood buddy. using a false description because everyone else seems to only be working on false information isn't a great way to start talking about a topic

the rest of your comment is telling. you don't really know what you're afraid of or what you're talking about, but you want them banned anyway.


my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

After modifications (most notably, the charging handle was re-located from under the carrying handle like AR-10 to the rear of the receiver),[65] the new redesigned rifle was subsequently adopted as the M16 Rifle.[8][68][64][54] "(The M16) was much lighter compared to the M14 it replaced, ultimately allowing Soldiers to carry more ammunition. The air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle was made of steel, aluminum alloy and composite plastics, truly cutting-edge for the time. Designed with full and semi-automatic capabilities, the weapon initially did not respond well to wet and dirty conditions, sometimes even jamming in combat. After a few minor modifications, the weapon gained in popularity among troops on the battlefield."[54][69][70]

Despite its early failures the M16 proved to be a revolutionary design and stands as the longest continuously serving rifle in American military history.[68][64] It has been adopted by many U.S. allies and the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge has become not only the NATO standard, but "the standard assault-rifle cartridge in much of the world."[64][71][72] It also led to the development of small-caliber high-velocity service rifles by every major army in the world, including the USSR and People's Republic of China.[64] Today, many small arms experts consider the M16 the standard by which all other assault rifles are judged.[64][73][74]


it's the civilian versions that look like the military versions, and not the other way around


yep...a genuine moron. I guess my point went way above your head.



"Don't you hear that horrible screaming all around you? That screaming men call silence."

reply

the fact that you get your information from wiki speaks volumes about YOUR actual understanding. the fact that you have to copy and paste it, speaks more.

let's go back to your analogy.

ts like saying an SUV is a 4x4 when its only the 2 wheel drive version...everyone knows what a 4x4 looks like, even if the function isn't the same. So when describing a gun, assault rifle is a valid description.

4x4 refers to the drive-train,not the look of the vehicle. saying something is an suv (assault rifle) when you're actually talking about drive-trains(action) is a moronic beginning to any debate.

the AR15 isn't an automatic or a 4x4, it's simply a semi automatic rifle just like hundreds of other makes and models out there. you just want to focus on the make and model of the one that looks scary to you. rifles come in many shapes and sizes, bolt action, semi automatic, lever action, etc. most rifles are semi-automtic. are YOU wanting to ban all of them? or just the ones you've deemed to be "assault rifles"?

WHY? what is it EXACTLY that you don't like about the semi automatic rifle that has been around for 100+ years?


my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

I realise I am replying to a moron...which goes against my own advice but hey...

People dis Wikipedia when they have lost the argument. Its as reliable a place for information as any and has cited sources for all the information I quoted. For stuff like dates and info on equipment its VERY reliable. Which makes my info a lot more credible than yours. You haven't cited one single source. You said the M16 wasn't full auto - INCORRECT - You said it wasn't classed as an assault rifle - INCORRECT - and Copy and paste saves time...and I ain't wasting much time on a moron like you.

4x4 refers to the drive-train,not the look of the vehicle.


moron. SUV companies make 2 and 4 wheeled versions of the same cars. So they DO look the same but one is a 4x4 and one isn't. So people often refers to suv's as 4x4's as it looks like one, without knowing if it is or not. They aren't going to check the rear diff or check the fire rate selector.

you just want to focus on the make and model of the one that looks scary to you


Scary? What are you talking about moron? Any gun is scary looking when pointed at you. And I don't want to do anything, talks about assault rifle bans are coming from your own politicians and people.

are YOU wanting to ban all of them? or just the ones you've deemed to be "assault rifles"?


I DONT WANT TO DO ANYTHING MORON...its a discussion, I know morons cant handle grown up conversations but do try to stop straw man arguments as they are dumb.


WHY? what is it EXACTLY that you don't like about the semi automatic rifle that has been around for 100+ years?


Again you are confusing me with the actual people trying to get these bans in law. I am not trying to do anything about it. I was simply explaining some of the actual facts about the discussion to someone else when you replied to me.

Its also interesting that I didn't mention M16's...you did. All I said was assault rifle and you instantly knew what gun I was talking about...proving the very point I was making. Moron.



"Don't you hear that horrible screaming all around you? That screaming men call silence."

reply

People dis Wikipedia when they have lost the argument. Its as reliable a place for information as any and has cited sources for all the information I quoted

i fail my students for using wiki. end of story. why don't you actually dig deeper into wiki? why don't you check out some of those "sources." wiki is a nice place to get some basic information, but it's not allowed as a source anywhere in the world of academia

You said the M16 wasn't full auto - INCORRECT

40 years ago it was, TODAY, in the MODERN military, the M16 is NOT fully auto. you'd know that if you got your information from places other than wiki...like actually spending time in the military.

moron like you.

ad hominem attacks are all you've done since your first post. people do that ...
when they have lost the argument


SUV companies make 2 and 4 wheeled versions of the same cars.

irrelevant. SUV refers to the type of vehicle, not the engine or the drive-train. logic clearly isn't your area of expertise either

So people often refers to suv's as 4x4's as it looks like one

no they don't. they refer them as SUV's and NOT 4x4s because people don't refer to vehicles by their drive trains

Any gun is scary looking when pointed at you.

no. i look at the person holding the gun. but then again, what personal experience do you have here?



my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

Assault rifles are firearms that can be fired in semi automatic and automatic, they are select fire weapons. That being said there is very little difference between an assault rifle and the average AR15 that a regular person can buy. One can shoot full auto and one can only shoot semi automatic. Otherwise they shoot the same round, hold the same amount of ammo and look the same.

reply

A military-style semi-automatic rifle is to a musket as a word processor is to a quill. The intent of the 2nd and 1st amendments haven't changed, just the tool needed to maintain them.

Before the AWB of 94 there were about a quarter million ar's in circulation, now there are 10 million. If you don't like guns, stop electing the clowns that make freedom loving Americans go out and buy them. History will regard Clinton and Obama as the greatest firearms salesmen to exist.

Janet Reno died on Monday
Hillary (and Bill) were defeated on Tuesday

I'd call that a pretty good week for the Branch Davidians, which is where the election last week started.


I'd call that
My Chimp DNA seems to have lost its password temporarily. Sluggr-2

reply

He understands exactly what you meant. He's trying to be dense and then he is letting you know all of thetypes. this tells you he is a gun enthusiast, who would know the street term for it in the gun culture.

Anything that rapid fires gullets is completely unnecessary unless you are in a warzone.

reply

Anything that rapid fires gullets is completely unnecessary unless you are in a warzone.

AGAIN - 100+ year old technology that applies to nearly every handgun on the market.

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

And yet still true. I have a pistol for my house, my car and my office. None of them are rapid fire. anything rapid fire, however many years old, is not necessary for anything but war. You can't hunt with it. If you need more slugs than that for self defense than you really need to go to the range some more.

reply

I have a pistol for my house, my car and my office. None of them are rapid fire.

then you're an idiot that doesn't know the first thing about the guns YOU claim to own. THEY ARE RAPID FIRE. THE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN AN AR. one bullet for every pull of the trigger. THE END. RAPID FIRE.

anything rapid fire, however many years old, is not necessary for anything but war

and yet you own at least three of them. what is it, are you a hypocrite, an idiot, or completely ignorant on all things firearm related?

let's back up. what in the world are YOU defining as rapid fire?

You can't hunt with it

and yet the AR is the most popular hunting rifle in america...more ignorance and false information

If you need more slugs than that for self defense than you really need to go to the range some more.

sigh, slugs are for SHOTGUNS and NOT rifles or ARs.

thank you for confirming your ignorance.
my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

They're a liar. They're a liar trolling you and you're falling for it.

reply

It is an industry classification though it is also a military classification which is where most terminology comes from when firearms are involved.

reply

In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use.


OK, so my m-16 being fully automatic (note selector set to F) doesn't bother you. Good to know. ;-)

My Chimp DNA seems to have lost its password temporarily. Sluggr-2

reply

This is why most anti gun people fail to make any traction with gun people. You dont even use the proper terms. I will probably never agree with an anti gun person but I am also an adult and can have polite conversation with them and heck even give them advice on how to improve their arguments. Learn something about guns before you argue against them so you dont sound ignorant.


reply

You're saying it is exactly as easy to get a gun illegally as legally?

D'oh. Of course it is. In some places it's easier. What planet do you live on? Not quite up on that process are you?

reply

I thought this was not a good show too, but that was not the bad part.
Nothing wrong with studying a subject ... you never know what you might
learn or find. As far as never-ever agreeing to "gun control" we have gun
control now - nothing wrong with it. We don't give guns to felons and
other stuff.

reply

John doesn't seem dumb so I don't understand why he doesn't get it. He's talking about the NRA and gun control and he is talking about wanting to repeal the Dickey Amendment which prevents the CDC from using its funds to research gun violence. At this point he is expressing frustration exclaiming that this wouldn't be gun control- it would only enable a way to have a *conversation* (Oliver emphasized "conversation") about it. Honestly, is he stupid? What is the point in having a conversation about something that you will never, EVER agree to?


It's the difference between the vocal minority who take a completely intractable pro-gun-rights position and the majority of Americans who consider some measures to be sensible.

Most Americans, including a majority of gun owners and even a majority of NRA members, are in favor of measures such as requiring background checks for sales at gun shows and ways to strengthen laws to prevent straw purchases.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/mar/18/lena-taylor/most-nra-members-back-background-checks-all-gun-pu/

To most Americans, allowing the CDC to do studies on gun violence is reasonable any action that might be taken should be based on facts, and purposely preventing the CDC to collect facts makes no sense.

The no-compromise, intractable nature of the vocal minority is shown in the part of your post I put in bold above. For that group, of which I assume you are a part, absolutely zero additional controls are acceptable and in fact many restrictions need to be removed. If you start out with that position, allowing the CDC to do studies only opens the door on a slippery slope to additional gun control measures.

For purposes of this post, I'll refer to these two groups as "most Americans" and "gun rights absolutists."

1. Most Americans see gun violence as a significant issue. When there is a mass shooting such as Aurora, Newtown, or Orlando, it seems unconscionable to go through such slaughter and not do something to prevent such events in the future, whether it be by limiting the capacity of firearms to kill so many so quickly or to prohibit firearm sales to particular groups, such as the mentally ill, those with restraining orders, or people on the terrorist watch list.

Gun rights absolutists see mass shootings as the unfortunate cost that our society must pay because of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Their usual response is to criticize making areas like schools, malls, and theaters "gun-free zones," and the solution they see is a well-armed citizenry that could stop an active shooter, especially since you can't depend on law enforcement because they arrive too late to prevent the carnage. They also believe that if more citizens were armed, many mass shootings wouldn't occur in the first place because shooters would know that they would be facing a well-armed citizenry.

2. Many gun rights absolutists believe that the founding fathers created the Second Amendment to allow the citizenry to resist and, if necessary, overthrow an overreaching and oppressive government. This is particularly true among Tea Party members, militias (which have expanded dramatically in recent years), the Sovereign Citizen movement, and other far-right groups. They believe that restricting firearms is the first step toward a totalitarian government takeover. They also believe that, even if the current government doesn't intend a totalitarian takeover, that's no guarantee that a future government wouldn't take advantage of a weakened citizenry to enforce a totalitarian state. That belief ultimately leads to the "from my cold, dead hands" mindset where compromise of any sort is unthinkable and could lead to the U.S. becoming Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

Most Americans don't support that interpretation of the Second Amendment and don't consider that to be any part of the argument regarding possible measures to lessen gun violence.

3. Many gun rights absolutists believe gun safety and gun control are stepping stones to totalitarian control. They believe that electronic gun license databases could be used by an oppressive government to confiscate guns. Many believe in conspiracy theories that the federal government in the abstract, the Obama administration in particular, and the United Nations in particular have plans to confiscate guns. Preventing paper records from being converted to electronic databases, something the Oliver touched on in his segment, is completely unacceptable to these gun rights absolutists.

To most Americans, the inability to bring firearm records into the electronic age is ludicrous, especially if doing so could prevent firearm sales to people who wouldn't pass a background check. To most Americans, we have electronic records for vehicle licenses, fishing licenses, even dog licenses, so it makes no sense whatsoever to not have electronic records for something as potentially dangerous as firearms.

4. Most Americans are willing to consider measures such as minimizing or banning the availability of high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, both of which are hallmarks of mass shootings. To most Americans, there's no justifiable reason to allow these firearms and magazines when faced with the carnage that they unleash so repeatedly.

To gun rights absolutists, any such measures are arbitrary and unreasonable. You want to limit magazines to some number, like 10? Many firearms allow more than that without using a high-capacity magazine. What exactly is an assault weapon compared to other firearms? This opens the door to the slippery slope where all guns will be confiscated -- once you outlaw one type of gun, it's just a matter of time until they try to outlaw them all. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are also essential in the minds of those who consider firearms as the citizenry's protection against oppressive government.


And on it goes. The inability of Congress to pass any measure whatsoever, even gun safety (not control) laws or something that helps law enforcement, such as microstamping, is directly due to the extreme positions held by gun rights absolutists and the vehemence with which they protest any action. This allows the gun rights absolutist minority to wield far more influence than the majority of Americans who favor the concept of additional gun safety or gun control measures. Nothing gets done because there is no compromise as far as one side of the argument is concerned.

(BTW, regarding defining what is an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle," there are basic features tests that are used to define these firearms. You can look it up. Blisteringlogic likely knows this, just as he probably knows that the automatic vs. semi-automatic argument is irrelevant to the discussion and is often used to put someone advocating limitations on assault weapons on the defensive.)

I'm in the "most Americans" group, but knowing gun rights absolutist positions as I do, particularly the far-right, anti-government, conspiracy-theory aspect of it, I have no hope that any meaningful action will ever pass on the federal level.

There's also precious little hope for meaningful dialogue on the topic, considering the intractable nature of the gun rights side. It's an important topic to me, so I venture into these waters once in a while, mainly in an attempt to educate what little I can and state a coherent argument for the "most Americans" side. If my posts generates responses, I may choose to engage in a bit of back and forth, but considering how fruitless I think the discussion ultimately is, I'm not likely to carry it too far.

I do commend Oliver for raising the issue. He was absolutely correct when he said that the only way to effect any change in response to Orlando is to expand the length of our outrage and discontent more than two weeks after such a horrific mass shooting. Unfortunately, unless you or a friend or loved one has been the victim of gun violence, you're unlikely to keep it up. Gun rights absolutists, however, never stop.


"The gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud -- I repeat the word "fraud" -- on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

-- Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1969-86

reply

First off, I think my original point was poorly made. Oliver expecting a conversation about gun control with the right is as silly as if Sean Hannity were expecting a conversation about overturning Roe v Wade with the left. Who would expect either of those things to happen?

For purposes of this post, I'll refer to these two groups as "most Americans" and "gun rights absolutists."



And for purposes of clarity I'll rename them as "People who don't understand firearms or the 2nd Amendment" and "People educated in both firearms and the 2nd Amendment"


Many gun rights absolutists believe that the founding fathers created the Second Amendment to allow the citizenry to resist and, if necessary, overthrow an overreaching and oppressive government.


May I ask what you think the Founding Fathers intentions were in penning the 2nd Amendment?

Most Americans don't support that interpretation of the Second Amendment and don't consider that to be any part of the argument regarding possible measures to lessen gun violence.


Whether or not most Americans choose to believe it, the 2nd Amendment was written as a bulwark against a tyrannical govt. And as the SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment infers an individual's right to keep and bear arms, that argument is moot.


To most Americans, we have electronic records for vehicle licenses, fishing licenses, even dog licenses, so it makes no sense whatsoever to not have electronic records for something as potentially dangerous as firearms.


See, the thing is though, you don't have a constitutional right to any of those other things, so it's not a valid comparison. Now if there were such a thing as say, a "1st Amendment License" that you needed in order to exercise your free speech, but no 2nd Amendment license was needed, then you'd have a point.


Most Americans are willing to consider measures such as minimizing or banning the availability of high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, both of which are hallmarks of mass shootings. To most Americans, there's no justifiable reason to allow these firearms and magazines when faced with the carnage that they unleash so repeatedly.


Banning high-capacity magazines are a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. Who is the govt to tell me that 7 bullets in a magazine is enough for me? No. There are situations were people are accosted by multiple attackers and a limited clip is a good chance to get killed. Also, situations like the L.A. Riots is a perfect example for a lawful need for high capacity magazines. Owners of businesses were stuck on their roofs defending themselves with their rifles.

(BTW, regarding defining what is an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle," there are basic features tests that are used to define these firearms. You can look it up. Blisteringlogic likely knows this,


Tests? Tests used by whom? Conducted by whom? Again- "Assault Weapon" or "Assault Rife" is just a made up term. There is no classification as either of those, period.

just as he probably knows that the automatic vs. semi-automatic argument is irrelevant to the discussion and is often used to put someone advocating limitations on assault weapons on the defensive.)


I must say that up until now, I've found you to be very cogent, reasonable, and measured... And then I read that. I must admit I was shocked. Automatic vs Semi-automatic is basically the whole reason for this whole debate because
"most Americans" (ie "People who don't understand firearms or the 2nd Amendment") don't understand the difference between the two and believe that all these mass-shootings are being committed with fully automatic firearms, so yes- auto vs is semi is very much the issue here.

If Obama really wanted to do something about gun violence, he'd stop attacking it from the gun side and begin approaching it from the mental health side. BTW, How many mental health reforms have been submitted since we've been experiencing the bulk of these mass shootings? I don't know, but I'm betting ZERO. Also, they could pass a FEDERAL law that imposes a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for using a gun in the commission of a crime. 2nd offense is life. That way even if an armed robbery is pleaded down to a misdemeanor, the guy will still go to jail for 10 years. Also, Barack Obama had control of both houses of Congress for two years and he could have passed anything he wanted and he didn't pass any gun control.

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

–- Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court 1986–2016

I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

Oliver expecting a conversation about gun control with the right is as silly as if Sean Hannity were expecting a conversation about overturning Roe v Wade with the left. Who would expect either of those things to happen?

Yep, my point exactly. When one or both sides refuse on principle to consider any compromise, "conversation" is doomed from the start. In this case, one side considers even a conversation to be unacceptable.

And for purposes of clarity I'll rename them as "People who don't understand firearms or the 2nd Amendment" and "People educated in both firearms and the 2nd Amendment"

Those are different groups from my "most Americans" and "gun rights absolutists." Your implication is that anyone who is educated about firearms and the Second Amendment will automatically take a gun rights absolutist position, and anyone who supports a conversation about gun control doesn't understand firearms or the Second Amendment.

What I think you're really saying is that only those people who agree with your absolutist position on firearms and the Second Amendment truly understand them. But that is plainly false, because a majority of gun owners and NRA members support some gun control measures.

To the modern reader, the Second Amendment may be oddly worded and open to judicial interpretation, particularly because the wording had a particular context at the time when it was written. Unfortunately, the wording has come to take on a completely different meaning that no longer relies on that historical context. It's ridiculous to say that there is only one valid interpretation of the amendment considering that the SCOTUS has had multiple, differing interpretations at different times.

May I ask what you think the Founding Fathers intentions were in penning the 2nd Amendment?

Sure. The amendment is short, and each part is significant -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, there was resistance among the founders to a standing army for defense of the country, primarily because they had been used as instruments of oppression by corrupt, despotic governments. Professional soldiers, in the founders view, were likely to consider themselves separate and above the citizenry with their loyalty to the army rather than the country and its citizens.

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671

To meet the need of national defense, the founders instead wanted to rely primarily on state-run militias, which were comprised of citizen-soldiers who could be called to military service when needed. The modern-day equivalent of those militias is the national guard, which despite the word "national" are run by each state. Like militias in revolutionary war times, the national guard is comprised of well-trained and organized citizens who can be called upon, if needed.

The founders intent with the Second Amendment was to ensure that these militias would have constitutional protection as a counterbalance to a standing army. The right to bear arms in the second half of the wording is directly tied to the need for militias and their role in the national defense as described in the first half.

While the wording of the Second Amendment may seem open to interpretation to modern eyes, the concept that it referred only to national guard-type militias is clearly stated by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers no. 29, Concerning the Militia.

https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-29

It's notable that gun rights absolutists often use invented or misattributed quotes by the founders to support their position, such as this fake quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation

For much of our nation's history, the meaning of the Second Amendment was not controversial. The first SCOTUS case referencing the Second Amendment didn't occur until United States v. Miller in 1939. That case established that the federal government had the right to regulate firearms as it saw fit (in this case, the National Firearms Act of 1934), and it established that the Second Amendment did not convey a blanket right to individuals to own firearms outside of the needs of a national guard-type militia.

A lower court had ruled that the Second Amendment did convey that right, but the SCOTUS overturned that ruling. The particulars of the case involved two defendants who were arrested in violation of the National Firearms Act for possessing an unregistered shotgun with a barrel less that 18 inches and transporting it across state lines. In its decision, the SCOTUS dealt with the Second Amendment issue as follows:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.


The decision was clear -- any rights conveyed by the Second Amendment applied solely to the need of a well-regulated militia to have arms for purposes of defending the country against outside invaders or against insurrections, and the amendment conveys no rights to citizens outside of a well-regulated militia.

United States v. Miller was the defining precedent for the Second Amendment, including any perceived individual right to own firearms outside of a national guard-type militia.

However, the NRA lobbied intensely with politicians, legal groups, think tanks, the general public, and ultimately the courts to promote the notion that the Second Amendment conveys a right for all citizens to individually own firearms. This effort culminated in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, when the SCOTUS ruled against precedent that the Second Amendment did convey an individual right to own firearms.

In its decision, Antonin Scalia argued that the first half of the amendment -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- was "preferatory," meaning that it was only a preface or introduction, and that the second half of the amendment was the only part that really mattered. His logic completed severed the right to bear arms from the role of the militia -- again, a "well regulated Militia" that is the equivalent of today's national guard. In essence, Scalia chose to erase the first half of the amendment.

For someone who purported himself to be an originalist regarding the Constitution, it is tortured logic. He totally disregarding the founders intent for the amendment regarding a well-regulated militia and its role to counterbalance a standing national army. To disregard that intent was to use whatever rationalization was necessary to achieve the desired outcome, which was to establish an individual right to own firearms.

Whether or not most Americans choose to believe it, the 2nd Amendment was written as a bulwark against a tyrannical govt. And as the SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment infers an individual's right to keep and bear arms, that argument is moot.

While its true that the Second Amendment was written in part as a bulwark against a tyrannical government, its not in the way that gun rights absolutists portray. The intent was to provide constitutional protection for militias to serve as a counterbalance to the standing army, not to establish an armed citizenry as a direct counterbalance to a tyrannical government.

It was not the intent of the founders to allow every citizen to have firearms so that they could rise up and overthrow a government they viewed as tyrannical. In that case, who decides what is tyranny? That leads to extremist whackos who view a government requirement to have a driver's license or vehicle registration as "tyranny" that needs to be resisted with force.

Tests? Tests used by whom? Conducted by whom? Again- "Assault Weapon" or "Assault Rife" is just a made up term. There is no classification as either of those, period.

It's not that hard to look this up. From Wikipedia:

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.... The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, gun control groups, the media, and the firearms industry itself. It is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle", which refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic and / or burst mode.

Another definition:

Semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and "military" features like pistol grips, flash suppressors and collapsible or folding stocks.

As mentioned in the Wikipedia passage, it's notable that the term "assault weapon" was first popularized regarding civilian firearms by the gun industry itself.

"Assault rifle" was first used to describe a military weapon, the Sturmgewehr, produced by the Germans in World War II. The Sturmgewehr — literally "storm rifle," a name chosen by Adolf Hitler — was capable of both semiautomatic and full-automatic fire. It was the progenitor for many modern military rifles.

But the term "assault rifle" was expanded and broadened when gun manufacturers began to sell firearms modeled after the new military rifles to civilians. In 1984, Guns & Ammo advertised a book called "Assault Firearms," which it said was "full of the hottest hardware available today."

"The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with antigun activists, media or politicians is wrong," Mr. Peterson wrote. "The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun."


www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/even-defining-assault-weapons-is-complicated.html

But the gun industry has since lobbied to say the term is useless. From the same article:

Phillip Peterson, a gun dealer in Indiana and the author of "Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons" (2008), said he had fought with his publishers over the use of the term in the title, knowing that it would only draw the ire of the gun industry.

After the passage of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons, Mr. Peterson said, the gun industry "moved to shame or ridicule" anyone who used “assault weapon” to describe anything other than firearms capable of full automatic fire.

His instinct proved correct: The National Rifle Association refused to sell the book on its Web site, he said. So in 2010, Mr. Peterson produced another version that contained "90 percent of the same info," but was retitled "Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Tactical Rifles." That book made it onto the N.R.A. site, he said.


The point is, while there are legitimate arguments around the details of what features make a firearm an assault weapon, the general outlines are clear, and the attempt to say that only fully automatic weapons qualify as assault weapons is a disingenuous argument promoted by the gun lobby.


Sorry about the length of this post, but that's what it takes to discuss these issues properly.

reply

"When one or both sides refuse on principle to consider any compromise, "conversation" is doomed from the start. In this case, one side considers even a conversation to be unacceptable."


Would you deny the left would react the same way in a similar situation?


"Your implication is that anyone who is educated about firearms and the Second Amendment will automatically take a gun rights absolutist position, and anyone who supports a conversation about gun control doesn't understand firearms or the Second Amendment."


No. Unless stated specifically, you should assume all statements are "in general". Of course there are people that know far more about firearms than me that are in favor of gun control. So, I should have written that as
"People, this is generally speaking as of course there are exceptions, who don't understand firearms or the 2nd Amendment"
. My apologies for that confusion.

In regard to your thoughts on the FF's intentions, I saw a lot of cut and paste, but not a lot of pontificating.


"While its true that the Second Amendment was written in part as a bulwark against a tyrannical government, its not in the way that gun rights absolutists portray. The intent was to provide constitutional protection for militias to serve as a counterbalance to the standing army, not to establish an armed citizenry as a direct counterbalance to a tyrannical government."


I respectfully completely disagree with everything you said regarding that. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


"Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions..."


This was exactly my point- there's no such thing as an "assault weapon". So when lawmakers throw that term around, it alerts me that they have no idea what they are talking about and I'm not into letting ignorant politicians passing legislation that will affect my life.

At this point I'd like to admit to an ignorance of my own that you have taken care of for me, thanks- I did not know that "Assault Rifle" is actual military nomenclature. I thought it was a made up term like "Assault Weapon". Appreciate that.





I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

Would you deny the left would react the same way in a similar situation?

I don't know what that has to do with anything. People who hold extremist positions or are otherwise unwilling to compromise altogether are that way, however you want to characterize their politics. Abortion is a topic that comes to mind where there are two intractable, opposed positions.

Times change. In the first half of the 20th century or even as late as the 1960s, there were many extremists on the left, but you'd be hard-pressed to name any now, while there are plenty on the right. Perhaps 100 years from now, the pendulum will swing and there will be more extremists on the left.

What does that have to do with the fact that only one side in the gun debate is unwilling to compromise?

In regard to your thoughts on the FF's intentions, I saw a lot of cut and paste, but not a lot of pontificating.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I stated my case and backed it up with references. Most of what I wrote was my own writing, not cut and pasted from elsewhere. Did referencing the Federalist Papers somehow lessen my argument? Quoting from United States v. Miller, the establishing SCOTUS precedent that specifically refuted the argument by the defendants and the lower court that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms separate from the role of a national guard-type militia?

Perhaps you don't want to accept the argument that I presented, but to dismiss it because I included references and didn't reach some desired level of "pontificating" seems absurd. Do you understand the meaning of that word? Pontificating would be a bad thing to do when arguing a position.

I respectfully completely disagree with everything you said regarding that. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Which, as I said in my first post, is where these discussions always end up, because absolutists do not accept any compromise.

The value of this discussion isn't for you, who would be unwavered no matter how convincing the evidence or compelling the arguments, but for others who may be unaware of the true origins of the Second Amendment and the way that the Heller decision essentially overturned the Miller decision and rendered the first half of the Second Amendment irrelevant.

This was exactly my point- there's no such thing as an "assault weapon". So when lawmakers throw that term around, it alerts me that they have no idea what they are talking about and I'm not into letting ignorant politicians passing legislation that will affect my life.

Just because different jurisdictions use slightly different definitions doesn't mean that the term holds no meaning. In some situations, an "adult" means someone who is 18, and in others its 21. Just because there are different definitions in different situations and the fact that establishing a specific age when a person changes from being a child to an adult is arbitrary on some level doesn't mean that the term "adult" is meaningless or that there isn't a valid reason for defining an adult from a legal standpoint. When it comes to assault weapons, defining them is far less arbitrary than defining an adult.

Also, railing against politicians seems gratuitous here. They may be politicians, but legislation is created by duly elected representatives, so they are the ones who create laws. That's how our three branches of government work, exactly as the founders specified in the Constitution. Dismissing the entire legislative branch as mere "ignorant politicians" is a cheap shot and a poor argument. Even if our representatives may not seem all that worthy of respect, the institution as a whole is.

Also, if you trust in the Constitution, you should trust in the checks and balances provided by the three branches. If you think an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional, either because the term "assault weapon" is too vague or that their use is protected by the Second Amendment, then trust that it will be proved so in the courts. But perhaps you already know that the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed all court challenges, including that definition of "assault weapon" was unconstitutionally vague.

----

I noticed that you didn't respond to this comment in my first post:

Gun rights absolutists see mass shootings as the unfortunate cost that our society must pay because of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Do you agree with that? Are you willing to accept repeated mass shootings as the price to pay so that you can have assault weapons? Are you willing to accept any measure to reduce the occurrence of these mass shootings?

And if you go with the "mental health" aspect, then also respond to this: why do the people who present that argument tend to resist any measures to improve reporting of mental health issues as part of background checks? Or funding for mental health services? The "most Americans" group is in favor of bolstering background checks so that the mentally ill or those with certain legal red flags cannot purchase guns, and they're generally in favor of increased funding for mental health services. The gun rights absolutist group is fond of making a "mental health" argument in response to mass shootings, but they resist any actual efforts to do anything about it.

reply


What does that have to do with the fact that only one side in the gun debate is unwilling to compromise?


I'm unsure of your wording, but I take it to mean only one side is willing to compromise in this debate. If that's correct, and I assume the side willing to compromise is the left, what is it that they are willing to compromise?


The value of this discussion isn't for you, who would be unwavered no matter how convincing the evidence or compelling the arguments, but for others who may be unaware of the true origins of the Second Amendment and the way that the Heller decision essentially overturned the Miller decision and rendered the first half of the Second Amendment irrelevant.


I feel the same way, no offense. And also I would appreciate you not making blanket statements about what I would or wouldn't do. If someone proposed some gun legislation that I thought would actually reduce crime and not infringe on the second amendment, I would happily, eagerly sign it. But after every mass shooting what happens? More gun control legislation that would have done nothing to prevent that particular attack is pushed as a way to show the Dems are doing something. It's a disgrace.



Just because different jurisdictions use slightly different definitions doesn't mean that the term holds no meaning. In some situations, an "adult" means someone who is 18, and in others its 21.


No- The word "Adult" is A) an actual term, and B) constant. The age at which one is considered to be that constant is what varies. Not a valid comparison.



Also, if you trust in the Constitution, you should trust in the checks and balances provided by the three branches. If you think an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional, either because the term "assault weapon" is too vague or that their use is protected by the Second Amendment, then trust that it will be proved so in the courts. But perhaps you already know that the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed all court challenges, including that definition of "assault weapon" was unconstitutionally vague.


Just because a law passes all court challenges does not make it constitutional within the spirit of the constitution. And by the way, that ban was a joke and did NOTHING to stop murders with fully automatic machine guns.

Do you agree with that?



I agree with it in the sense that just like as long as the technology of the car exists, we will always have traffic fatalities. We are always striving for ways to make society safer from car deaths, so to with guns- I am always looking for constitutional ways to reduce gun violence, but it will always be with us. And I would most definitely be interested in putting more funding into mental health to weed these nutjobs out.



I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

Rather than belabor things or get into narrower and narrower points, for my part, I'm going to call it a day with this discussion. I've made my points, you've made yours, and I appreciate you engaging in a civil conversation. It would be nice if others would add to the discussion, but that's the way it goes.

Thanks.

reply

I concur, thank you for a civil debate.

I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

it would only enable a way to have a *conversation* (Oliver emphasized "conversation") about it. Honestly, is he stupid? What is the point in having a conversation about something that you will never, EVER agree to?

You don't seem to understand the relevance of the research. The "conversation" will be able to be supported by legit facts and evidence, which is missing right now from gun control supporters. Even the NRA might benefit if the research goes in their favor. But the point is, there is no evidence currently and laws are being passed or not passed because of the lack of evidence. The evidence will greatly influence what laws will be passed in the future.

reply

I'm sorry, I don't believe I made my point clearly. Let's just substitute gun control for abortion, change John Oliver with Sean Hannity. Now if Hannity was pushing liberals to merely have a conversation about regulating or banning abortion, not regulating or banning, merely having a conversation. Can you tell me that you wouldn't be thinking- What the hell is this guy smoking thinking that the left would do that? That was the point I was trying to make. Not on the merits of the subject, just Oliver's strange expectation.

I just learned how to use the "Spoiler" button...

reply

Exactly, choice down the line.

If people expect conservatives to stay quiet about "murdering babies", maybe people should considering being consistent and quiet about guns.


Second Amendment for @noelplum #AskAnAmerican
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijaEVJ6LfnE

Writing Cenks That You Can't Cash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRuXO8HCack

reply

There actually are heavy regulations on abortion. These vary state by state. In all states the first trimester only. In all states after that you are only allowed if the mother's life is in danger. Most states have even heavier contingencies. Unlike that, gun regulations are pretty much universal.

But let me ask you, what exactly would a civilian like you and I need an assault rifle for? I know most gun owners don't own one, but those that do normally own multiple. I really see no point in them other than to go kill a bunch of people in a movie theatre or club.

reply

But let me ask you, what exactly would a civilian like you and I need an assault rifle for?

back up. what is it EXACTLY that you are afraid of when it comes to the so called...sigh...assault rifle? spell it out

I know most gun owners don't own one

based on what information?

but those that do normally own multiple

and? i own multiple sets of skis, and backpacks. did you have a point?

I really see no point in them other than to go kill a bunch of people in a movie theatre or club.

which is why despite the millions and millions of ARs in civilian hands, the AR makes up less than 1% of all crime???

just because your name is fatality, that doesn't mean that there are fatalities everywhere

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

You rebuff yourself. That tells me when you ask me what an assault rifle is you are being argumentative in the multiple arms you have. I own 3 guns (pistols since you like to argue about the semantics).

I have no issue with owning them, believe me nobody will take the ones I have in my home, office, or car. But you ask me for information yet provide none of your own on assault rifles. Sigh again my friend.

Give me the stats on millions of millions of ARs in civilian hands. Yes, that was hyperbole on your part, like you claim on others. I am for the second, but not for WMDs.

There is no reason you can give me for having one of those. They are used to kill people, nothing else.

reply

That tells me when you ask me what an assault rifle is you are being argumentative in the multiple arms you have.

no. i'm flat out curious. what is it exactly that you have an issue with them?

But you ask me for information yet provide none of your own on assault rifles.

i'm not the only calling a RIFLE an assault weapon. YOU ARE.

Give me the stats on millions of millions of ARs in civilian hands.

done.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/13/owned-by-5-million-americans-ar-15-under-renewed-fire-after-orlando-massacre.html
that was the first artile i went to and it says 5 million americans own one.

your turn

There is no reason you can give me for having one of those.

they're like swiss army knives that allow me to customize the gun to suit my purposes. done. you don't have to like my reasons, but that doesn't negate the validity

They are used to kill people, nothing else.

sigh, NO THEY ARE NOT. i'm an infantry vet so trust me when i tell you that the AR15 is modeled after the M16 and not even the M16 was designed to kill. it was designed to INJURE.

YOU, like most like you, don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. you talk from a position of fear and ignorance, but yours is worse as you're a hypocrite claiming that the guns you own are okay, but the ones i own are not....despite the FACT that the type of firearm you own is used in far more crimes and deaths than the type i own.
my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

not even the M16 was designed to kill. it was designed to INJURE.


And that's where I call your bs. Nice try, buddy, but you are obviously lying about being a vet. The M16, uses a 5.56mm or .223 cal round. Those rounds, are designed to kill, no matter where you're shot on the body. Meaning, I can shoot you in the leg, and that round will some how work it's way to the gut and still kill you.

One shot, one kill. Ever heard that saying, Mr. Infantryman?

The other guy is right, you aren't even legally allowed to hunt with those "assault" rifles. Therefore, the only purpose to own one is to either look "cool" or to "kill" people.

reply

Nice try, buddy, but you are obviously lying about being a vet. The M16, uses a 5.56mm or .223 cal round.



Nice try, buddy, 5.56 has been criticized by the military for decades because of how ineffective it is in combat.

It also has terrible ballistics with barrels under 20" which is the majority of the civilian AR market.


Those rounds, are designed to kill, no matter where you're shot on the body.


Is that why a huge portion of special forces and civilians use ARs in calibers like 308 & 300 blackout? Maybe you know something they don't.

Meaning, I can shoot you in the leg, and that round will some how work it's way to the gut and still kill you.


Wow, magical. 😱 You sure sound like you know what you're talking about.

One shot, one kill. Ever heard that saying, Mr. Infantryman?


That saying applies to precision bolt action sniper rifles--not ARs.

The US military has extensive documentation showing 5.56 doesn't incapacitate enemies despite multiple hits.

The other guy is right, you aren't even legally allowed to hunt with those "assault" rifles.


The other guy and you are wrong, you are legally allowed to hunt with those 'assault' rifles. In fact, the hog population in Texas is so out of control that hunters are even allowed to indiscriminately hunt them with ARs from helicopters.


Therefore, the only purpose to own one is to either look "cool" or to "kill" people.


😨 That's why they account for less than 1% of gun deaths.

reply

Nice try, buddy, 5.56 has been criticized by the military for decades because of how ineffective it is in combat.

Wrong. And you got this data from.......?
Is that why a huge portion of special forces and civilians use ARs in calibers like 308 & 300 blackout? Maybe you know something they don't.

Wrong again. They use, and have been using 5.56 for decades. Do you just make things up to suit you?
The other guy and you are wrong, you are legally allowed to hunt with those 'assault' rifles. In fact, the hog population in Texas is so out of control that hunters are even allowed to indiscriminately hunt them with ARs from helicopters.

Considering you got all your other facts wrong, I'm just going to dismiss this as you making things up for fun. Shooting hogs from helicopters.....lol. You are pretty creative, I'll give you that.

reply

Nice try, buddy, 5.56 has been criticized by the military for decades because of how ineffective it is in combat.


Wrong. And you got this data from.......?


how about...

Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing and fragmenting.

This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases.


and

f 5.56 mm bullets fail to upset (yaw, fragment, or deform) within tissue, the results are relatively insignificant wounds. This is true for all 5.56×45mm bullets, including both military FMJ and OTM (open tip match) and civilian JHP/JSP designs used in law enforcement. As expected, with decreased wounding effects, rapid incapacitation is unlikely: enemy soldiers may continue to pose a threat to friendly forces and violent suspects can remain a danger to law enforcement personnel and the public.


Small Arms Defense Journal, 6 January 2012

Is that why a huge portion of special forces and civilians use ARs in calibers like 308 & 300 blackout? Maybe you know something they don't.


Wrong again. They use, and have been using 5.56 for decades. Do you just make things up to suit you?


sigh, clearly YOU are the one making things up to suit your mistaken beliefs.

there is simply no way that any "marine" would argue that the 5.56 is a deadly round. unless of course that "marine" never actually served a day of combat.

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

Wrong. And you got this data from.......?


Literally anyone that's ever fired a 5.56 in combat or hunted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO#Criticism

I'm sure you understand ballistics better than the US Army Colonel cited there--who pretty much invented all the modern testing techniques.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fackler



Wrong again. They use, and have been using 5.56 for decades. Do you just make things up to suit you?



I love when uninformed unpeople make definitive statements like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK417

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.300_AAC_Blackout#History


Do we even have to get into all the different civilian variants from 22 LR to .50 Beowulf? I'm sure you're totally aware of those and an expert in them as well. 😅


Considering you got all your other facts wrong



You're too cute.


Shooting hogs from helicopters.....lol. You are pretty creative, I'll give you that.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/us/13ttporkchopper.html?_r=0


You're just oh-so-giddy about being completely out of touch with reality.

Stop embarrassing yourselves and stick to your uninformed echo chambers.

reply

If you've ever served in the military, you'd know that the military speaks highly of the 5.56mm round.

Matter of fact, we shot both 7.62 and 5.56 on armor sapi plates and the 5.56 penetrated it like butter. The 7.62 shattered on impact.

These are real world experience from actually being there. I don't know the validity of the data you have, but it's obviously contradictory to my OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. Therefore, you two morons can continue to reply, calling out your "superior" knowledge in the subject, but as far as I'm concerned, you're two moronic trolls with no life experience pretending to be military experts.

reply

If you've ever served in the military, you'd know that the military speaks highly of the 5.56mm round.

i have, they don't.



my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

not even the M16 was designed to kill. it was designed to INJURE.

No one is this stupid. The fact that you made this statement, negates everything you've said. I think between the two of us, everyone knows which one is "stealing valor" and which one is not.

reply

not even the M16 was designed to kill. it was designed to INJURE.


No one is this stupid. The fact that you made this statement, negates everything you've said. I think between the two of us, everyone knows which one is "stealing valor" and which one is not.


if you were infantry, then you would know that professional military personal and their weapons, around the world, are trained NOT to kill, but to injure.

WHY? because if you kill someone, you take one person off the field of battle, but if you injure one, you take an average of three off the field. i'm not making this up, and you would have learned it in boot camp IF you had actually served.

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

If you were real infantry, you wouldn't be regurgitating some lame speech you heard in a movie about infantry and you'd know that tactics are never the same and no two ops will employ the same tactics. But you're not real infantry, you just watched a lot of movies.

And by the way, if what you said were true, the saying, "One Shot, One Kill," wouldn't exist. Just FYI for you.

reply

as true infantry, i don't watch war movies. EVER

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

If you've ever served in the military, you'd know that the military speaks highly of the 5.56mm round.



Literally linked ballistic evidence by an Army Colonel who was the top ballistics expert on the planet. Nobody speaks highly of 5.56. Even the British military says it's an ineffective round.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/6451003/Bullets-used-by-British-soldiers-too-small-to-defeat-Taliban.html


Matter of fact, we shot both 7.62 and 5.56 on armor sapi plates and the 5.56 penetrated it like butter. The 7.62 shattered on impact.



You're now claiming to have a military background, yet you don't seem to realize that the 7.62x51 rifles I linked (all military issue) use a round that has been in service since the M14 marksman rifle was introduced in the 1960s. This round is still used by military snipers today--because of its ballistics, stopping power, and armor penetration. All superior to 5.56.


Or maybe you're just an uninformed liar who saw some videos of people shooting AK's at steel plates and thought that 7.62x39 is the same as 7.62x51? 😖


These are real world experience from actually being there.



😅


I don't know the validity of the data you have, but it's obviously contradictory to my OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.



The facts will always contradict your own personal experience when you make up said experience.


Therefore, you two morons can continue to reply, calling out your "superior" knowledge in the subject, but as far as I'm concerned, you're two moronic trolls with no life experience pretending to be military experts.



Oliver must be real proud of his deplorable fans impersonating military personnel.


#Sad

reply

Well, you're obviously trolling me, since your name is, "imtrollingyouidiot" and your account is only 4 days old. Therefore, you literally made an account to troll me on a news message board. You must have a very substantial life. 

reply

Way to deflect, coward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_imposter


Therefore, you literally made an account to troll me on a news message board.



I literally used a throwaway Google account to sign in and point out that you're a lying scumbag, you lying scumbag.


Please refute any of the undeniable facts presented to you ITT. Just kidding--you can't.


It's surprising how disgusting Oliver's fans are. (it's not)

reply

And that's where I call your bs. Nice try, buddy, but you are obviously lying about being a vet. The M16, uses a 5.56mm or .223 cal round

the military uses the 5.56 nato round, not the .223.

Those rounds, are designed to kill, no matter where you're shot on the body.

NO THEY ARE NOT. time for you do some actual research.

Meaning, I can shoot you in the leg, and that round will some how work it's way to the gut and still kill you.

?!?!!?!?!?! where do you people come up with this BS?!?!?!?!?

you aren't even legally allowed to hunt with those "assault" rifles

which is it? they're so deadly you can shoot the deer in the leg, and it will somehow kill the deer or is the round designed to injure which is why many states have banned their use in hunting?

yet another guy that doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about.

11B buddy, 11B all the way

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

5.56mm is the same thing as .223 cal. Idiot. And I said 5.56 in my first reply to you. So learn to read, Mr. Wannabe 11B. Oh, by the way, 0311, numb nuts. Army phag.

they're so deadly you can shoot the deer in the leg, and it will somehow kill the deer or is the round designed to injure which is why many states have banned their use in hunting?

Not what I said at all. More proof you can't read for sht.

reply

5.56 is NOT the same thing. a 5.56 rifle can shoot both the 5.565 and the .233, but NOT the other way around.

you've never served a day. every sentence you write, proves it.

my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance

reply

Oh Jesus Christ, I said 5.56 in the first sentence, and this is what you're harping on? LEARN TO READ NUMB NUTS! The fact that this is all you can argue against, is proof you don't know jack and you're trying to stretch your limited knowledge on being nit picky.

reply

John Oliver is still in possession of the peasant mentality that infects 99.99% of people from the UK.

My Chimp DNA seems to have lost its password temporarily. Sluggr-2

reply