Lefty Remedial Education 103; What a Freaking Assault Weapon Actually Is

[Divine Wind]

Should we ignore all advances in technology, as the Founding Fathers did and rely on antiquated laws to address modern problems?

Twenty years ago, texting and driving was non-existent. Was it wrong for lawmakers to address that hazard?

Are you really sure you want to open that can of worms? Open the Constitution for a rewrite to "modernize" it? Have you looked at how effective Congress has been the last few years? Do you really want to give the religious zealots, anti-science douchebags, socialists and other fringe, but very vocal, special interest groups a shot at rewriting your rights in this country?

Dude, I'm more afraid of Congress than I am of you or anyone else cutting loose with an "assault weapon".

 

[Timmy]

No one is saying you cannot continue to bear arms. No one is advocating confiscation. But there are some regulations that go along with the responsibility of gun ownership. No one has an absolute right to own any weapon at all.

1) You might want to read up on some of your fellow anti-gun/gun control advocates posts.

2) Since most anti-gunners are liars, how can I trust what you say? If we passed Obama's 2013 gun control bill, would you be satisfied with that lever of gun control and never, ever bring up the subject again? Or would you push for additional gun control measures using the 2013 bill as a stepping stone?

Should we ignore all advances in technology, as the Founding Fathers did and rely on antiquated laws to address modern problems?

Twenty years ago, texting and driving was non-existent. Was it wrong for lawmakers to address that hazard?

Founding fathers didn't have to show special state issued voter ID either . But Cons have no problem pushing that through.

 

[Godboy]

No one is saying you cannot continue to bear arms. No one is advocating confiscation. But there are some regulations that go along with the responsibility of gun ownership. No one has an absolute right to own any weapon at all.

1) You might want to read up on some of your fellow anti-gun/gun control advocates posts.

2) Since most anti-gunners are liars, how can I trust what you say? If we passed Obama's 2013 gun control bill, would you be satisfied with that lever of gun control and never, ever bring up the subject again? Or would you push for additional gun control measures using the 2013 bill as a stepping stone?

Should we ignore all advances in technology, as the Founding Fathers did and rely on antiquated laws to address modern problems?

Twenty years ago, texting and driving was non-existent. Was it wrong for lawmakers to address that hazard?

Founding fathers didn't have to show special state issued voter ID either . But Cons have no problem pushing that through.

You only have a point if you can find rules for voter I'D in the constitution. I'm going to assume you cant, therefore your point is invalid and not very well thought out.

 

[Divine Wind]

Founding fathers didn't have to show special state issued voter ID either . But Cons have no problem pushing that through.

I have no problem with voter ID. Our voting system should be verifiable and trustworthy. However, I do have a problem with assholes who use voter ID as a backdoor poll tax and/or to disenfranchise Americans of their right to vote. If a picture ID is required to vote, then it should be free upon registering to vote (i.e. taxpayer funded).

What does this have to do with the limited capability of the 5.56mm round?

 

[Divine Wind]

You only have a point if you can find rules for voter I'D in the constitution. I'm going to assume you cant, therefore your point is invalid and not very well thought out.

Given that we have an inherent right to vote, putting restrictions on people to vote based on income, gender, race or anything else is unConstitutional.

However, as the link below affirms, while we have an inherent right to vote, the Constitution doesn't contain an affirmative right to vote.

None

 

[320 Years of History]

When one can't argue the idea, argue the semantics.

Regardless of what, if anything, others think should be done about "assault weapons," "assault rifles," gangster weapons," etc., it seems clear to me that there is a vernacular that includes both specific and general terms for the types of weapons folks want to ban. Depending sadly on the tack one (groups) wants to use to argue their side of the matter, rather than the realities that pertain to the weapons themselves, we find ourselves in discussions where one side uses somewhat more precise terms like "semi-automatic," "automatic," "machine gun," "AR-15," M16" and so on while the other side uses more general terms such as those in this paragraph's first sentence.

Now I'm not a gun, ranged weapon, or shooting enthusiast, nor am I one who has criminal intents, to say nothing of having illegal intents, that may call for using a weapon to help ensure successfully achieving criminal aims. But I'm also not so intellectually ignorant that I do not recognize equivocation when I see it.

"You couldn't have it if you didn't want it," the Queen said. "The rule is jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today."

"It must come to jam today," Alice objected.

"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: today isn't any other day, you know."
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
​

An Analogue to Arms Ambiguity:
Guns are not the only consumer product for which conversations about them suffers from equivocal language. As a watch collector, I somewhat recently discovered that horology enthusiasts have the same problem. For some 30+ years I've been "into" watches and collecting them. A few years ago, I discovered that there are Internet forums comprised of, by and for folks who have some degree of hobby interest in watches, ostensibly as "serious" collectors. It was then that I discovered there is in the popular watch collecting lexicon such a thing as "high end" watches.

Truly, in all my years of buying watches, researching horological history, learning about the details of watch manufacture, the watch business (production and retailing), types of watches, and so on, not once until discovering these watch forums had I ever heard anyone refer to a class of watches called "high end" watches, yet in watch forums there the category was. Seeing the term, I asked myself, "What is a high end watch?" I also wondered, "Why the hell should I care what one is?" I knew that if I heard that term, I'd think it's a watch that has a high price, a watch one cannot buy without forking over a lot of money. (What's "a lot of money?" What's a "high price?" Well, it's pretty much whatever any given individual thinks it is.)

Well, no, apparently it's not that simple -- at least for some folks it's not -- but for all that it is, the critical factor is that like "a lot of money," there is no official definition of what "high end" means horologically. Consequently, people can, and much to my surprise do, prattle on and on about whether such and such a watch is or is not a high end watch. Indeed, there are, again to my surprise, people who aim not to buy a watch having specific characteristics, but rather to buy a (or several) "high end" watch. LOL Yes, that's it. They want a watch that's considered "high end." Why that is their goal is beyond me, but it seems clear to me that some part of their being is bound up with the aura of the watch rather than its substance.

Now I don't know how "serious" be most folks who routinely participate on watch forums, but I do know that the watch collecting has other ambiguously understood terms. One that comes to mind is "grand complication" watch. There again, even the folks who are leaders/experts in the world of horology don't all agree on what that term means.

Well, with guns, there's also seeming ambiguity. "Assault weapon" has become the term that gun rights advocates aim to morph into something uncertain. From what I can tell, "assault weapon" is the gun rights world's equivalent to "high end" watch or "grand complication" watch. Merriam-Webster defines "assault weapon" as "any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms." Well, I understand what that means. As a definition it's clear, precise and unambiguous. Merriam-Webster also defined "high end" as "higher in price and of better quality than most others." I understand that too.

The thing that makes the nature and use of uncertainty in gun terminology different from watch terminology is this: nothing. What makes it matter that there is ambiguity about gun terminology is that guns are machines designed to facilitate killing and watches are machined designed to facilitate measurement and reporting the passage of time. But for that difference, as with the answer to "what is a 'high end' watch?", for the question "what is an 'assault weapon'?" we'd be in a situation whereby nobody who cares matters, and nobody who matters cares.

Ambiguity Motivations:
Apparently, Merriam-Webster is an unacceptable source for the definition of either term. Many people must think the editors of Merriam-Webster are such clods that they cannot research a term well enough to put a definition to it. What is clear, however, is that folks who use either term do so in connection with some objective or context that has nothing to do with the item in question.

Much of the gun debate pertaining to "assault weapons" that I've read parses the term "assault weapon" much as Wonderland's Queen equivocated on "today." It seems that gun control folks focus on the "assault" aspect of the term, thereby using the tactic to constrain the availability of more classes of guns, whereas gun rights folks use the term to argue how gun control folks don't know what they are talking about by saying that actua


What Congress Did in the Assault Weapons Ban:
In the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (1994 Assault Weapons Ban), Congress didn't define "assault weapon," it defined "semiautomatic assault weapon." The most recent version of that law did the same. Why they did so is beyond me...I guess "semiautomatic gun" or maybe "single action gun" wouldn't do. The word "assault" didn't need to appear; indeed its appearance in the legislation has been the source of far too much discussion, discussion that really gets us nowhere closer to solving the problem of people being accidentally or unlawfully killed by individuals using guns to do so.

It seems obvious to me from reading of the various and oft reported terrorist uses of guns such as that in Newtown, CT or Orlando, FL that a key factor (not the only key factor) that made those events as deadly as they were is that the gun used could be fired more rapidly by a shooter of "average/common" skill at firing a gun could get off more rounds than they likely could have were the gun not a semi-automatic one. The ease with which one can fire subsequent bullets after firing the first one definitely has an impact on a shooter's ability to kill or hurt one or multiple individuals.

Accordingly, I think constraining semi-automatic weapons was thematically right insofar as it recognizes the heightened threat posed by nefarious users of more rapidly firing guns, but the implementation of the theme was amiss. I think some emphasis belongs on the nature of the weapon itself, but a lot of it also belongs on the potential owner of the weapon. Of course finding an equitable way to deal with the human is far harder than doing so re: the weapon. As we say in consulting, "software [the tool] is easy to deal with; dealing with people is what's hard."

Proposal for Improving Things:
Now one can argue back and forth about what guns, if any, should be widely available to the public and which of them should not. Frankly, I don't necessarily think that the type of gun that one can obtain should be the focus of any gun laws. I think focus of gun/public safety legislation for all guns should be the same. For all the hoopla about "assault weapons," the fact is that we don't hear much about automatic weapons being used to commit crimes.

Why not? As far as I can tell, it's because automatic weapons are closely tracked. It's not that one cannot purchase an automatic weapon for they aren't actually illegal; it's that if one does, the ATF knows who you are and where to look for you, and if "something" untoward happens involving one's automatic weapon, the ATF will come knocking. Indeed, I think there are two paths that allow one to buy Title II firearms.

• How to buy a machine gun - The Gun Writer
  
• FAQ On National Firearms Act Weapons (Title II weapons)

[Y]ou can make any NFA weapon, except for machine guns, by filing ATF Form 1, "Application to Make and Register a Firearm", and paying the $200 making tax, which applies to all of these weapons, including AOW's. You may not make the proposed weapon until the Form 1 is returned to you approved. The law enforcement certification, photos and fingerprints also apply to Form 1's, and in fact to any transfer to an individual. Additionally the manufacturer of any NFA weapon, including an individual making one on a Form 1 must mark the receiver of the weapon with the maker's name and city and state. NFA Branch can grant exemptions from this for DD's. All types of corporations, including corporate type 01 FFL holders, need not do the certification, photo and fingerprint requirements. Any of the forms listed, and the fingerprint cards, are available for free from ATF, either in Washington, D.C. or your local office.​

It seems to me that if all guns were tracked as are automatic weapons, folks would feel a heightened sense of needing to keep control over their possession of those weapons. I know that were I that the case, and if I owned a Title II, and if I could be held responsible for the use of my weapon, regardless of whether I'm the user in any given instance, I damn sure would make sure that my weapon does not get into the hands of anyone other than myself. I'd even go so far as to make the seller somewhat similarly responsible. Do the owners and sellers of weapons need to be as equally culpable and equally penalized as the illegal user of a gun? Probably not, but some level of guaranteed amercement or imprisonment needs to exist so as to instill a greater-than-exists-now level of caution in trading in civilian firearms.

What do I think the above will achieve?

• It'll probably make it take a bit longer to obtain a gun. I don't see that as a problem for law abiding civilians. Adults have to anticipate all sorts of things. We save money in anticipation of something coming about that requires us to have more than we'll receive in our next paycheck. We store food in our refrigerators. We install generators in case of power outages. We lock our doors. One need only anticipate needing a gun for one's safety before the actual need arises and "get moving" on filing the appropriate forms and whatnot. The fact is that responsible and sage law abiding folks don't, IMO, have urgent needs for guns.
• It'll make owning the gun more expensive to the extent of the fees for filing the requisite forms.
• It'll inspire folks to secure their guns and thus curtail the extent to which stolen guns make their way into the hands of folks who aren't permitted to buy them. (Stolen guns aren't the biggest of "issues" in the gun debate, but it's one issue. This approach reduces the relevance of that aspect of the debate and it reduces the risk that stolen guns get into the hands of unsavory individuals.)

Why the above proposal?

• I don't think that guns, in and of themselves, are the problem, but they do exacerbate the problem, which is that the "wrong" people obtain guns and the "right" people who do don't often enough prevent them from being used for undesirable ends.
• I think who gets hold of them is the problem.
• I think that the task of discovering enough about who is and who is not the "right" and "wrong" person to have a gun is very hard to accomplish because there are limits on the funding of research into the psychological etiology of gun violence.
  
  Note:
  IMO, gun violence is no different than any other violence other than that a gun increases the odds of one being successful at achieving their ends, be the end violence for its own sake, or something else that isn't necessarily violent, but to achieve the end, violence may or does become required in the mind of the actor. But I'm no psychologist. Maybe gun violence is more different than that. Nobody knows. That nobody knows, of course, contributes to rather than abates the difficulty of finding an actionable and equitable solution to the problems we face in connection with gun use/abuse.
• I think that responsible and law abiding folks have every right to own a gun, and everyone who isn't that kind of citizen does not.

Misplaced priorities:
In discussing guns, people tend to bring up four uses:

• Sport/hobby use
• Law enforcement use
• Criminal use
• Personal safety

Looking at each of those uses, only one, criminal use, is what we need to minimize as best we can. Anyone with any sense knows we won't be able to prevent criminal uses of guns. Thus the question we need to ask ourselves is this: "What actions offer some hope of diminish the qualitative and quantitative effects and incidence, respectively, of criminal gun use?"

Well, the simple truth, IMO, is that unless and until we can get a good handle on the etiology of gun violence, every way we can approach curtailing criminal gun use will necessarily require compromises on the part of would be (or actual) gun holders who have/use their guns solely for sport/hobby use, law enforcement and personal safety, all of which are perfectly acceptable uses. The reason concessions are unavoidable is that we have scant to no information that allows us to credibly and cogently discern whether one who attests to being a sport/hobby, law enforcement or personal safety carrier of a gun may avail themselves of the convenience of having the gun and use it for criminal purposes.


Conclusion:
Given the current uncertainty about gun violence etiology combined with a pressing need to pare down gun deaths and gun-related violence, what does one do? Well, I think one tries what one can and measures whether it works. If it helps, great keep it; it doesn't help, trash it. Now I don't care what we try; we can try "everything" as far as I'm concerned. I just want to see fewer people dying from gun-violence. While we are trying to curtail gun violence, we can also implement other solutions to curb other kinds of violence.

Does that mean we need to try the various gun violence syncopation options in a linear manner? No. It just means that we try what we can invent to try and see what happens. It also means that objective and logically (truly) sound means of measurement and analysis that meet the requirements of the scientific method be defined upon the enactment of any legislation. Too, it means that we define terms of measurement at the time of enacting any legislation. Lastly, it means that any legislation be written so that it can be accurately measured and analyzed using the scientific method.

Thank you. That was a very well thought out post.

You're welcome. TY too.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're dishonesty is apparent to all....

I'm content to let our readers decide for themselves who is the disingenuous, lying fuckwad.

I vote for you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You only have a point if you can find rules for voter I'D in the constitution. I'm going to assume you cant, therefore your point is invalid and not very well thought out.

Given that we have an inherent right to vote, putting restrictions on people to vote based on income, gender, race or anything else is unConstitutional.

However, as the link below affirms, while we have an inherent right to vote, the Constitution doesn't contain an affirmative right to vote.

None

WRONG!

The Right to vote is inferred in Sec. 2 of the 14th, the 15th, the 17th, the 19th, the 24th and the 26th Amendments to COTUS; and in Art. I, sec 2, clause 1; Art. IV, sec. 2.

Each of these links are clear, the right to vote is inherent in our democratic republic and their clarity is pure; unlike the syntax here, "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.

.

 

[Brain357]

So gun nuts think legally arming killers with guns for mass killing is a good idea. Orlando says it is a real bad idea.

This is exactly the type of bullshit response which proves American's can't trust the anti-gun mob to be honest.

Dude, get a brain. No one said "legally arming killers with guns for mass killing is a good idea". That's a juvenile, purely emotional straw man argument.

That is what you did in Orlando and other mass killings. It is simply fact.

 

[Brain357]

The average person doesn't know how to make bombs. They would use the Internet and potentially be noticed by the FBI.

Or just get a private server.

That can be traced.

 

[Timmy]

Isn't it true that these types of rifles Fire a small rounds that "tumble " in a way to cause maximum damage to the target on exit ? That's why hunters don't use them because they will tear up the meat?

Meaning the only real use for them is to kill people .

No. It's still a matter of physics: Force = Mass X Acceleration. What made the M-16/5.56mm appealing over the M-14/7.62x51mm was that both the rifle and the ammunition were lighter. Bigger rounds were/are more powerful and better for longer ranges, but that isn't needed in a jungle or urban environment.

"Urban environment " ? You mean weapon of war right ?

 

[Timmy]

You only have a point if you can find rules for voter I'D in the constitution. I'm going to assume you cant, therefore your point is invalid and not very well thought out.

Given that we have an inherent right to vote, putting restrictions on people to vote based on income, gender, race or anything else is unConstitutional.

However, as the link below affirms, while we have an inherent right to vote, the Constitution doesn't contain an affirmative right to vote.

None

Try reading past the 2nd amendment sometime .

 

[Divine Wind]

You're dishonesty is apparent to all....

I'm content to let our readers decide for themselves who is the disingenuous, lying fuckwad.

I vote for you.

Of course you do. Disingenuous anti-gun advocates need to stick together, amirite?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're dishonesty is apparent to all....

I'm content to let our readers decide for themselves who is the disingenuous, lying fuckwad.

Fail.

 

[regent]

This love affair that some Americans have with guns, has it ever been studied?

 

[Divine Wind]

Try reading past the 2nd amendment sometime .

I'm happy to do so. I swore an oath, at least seven times, to support and defend the Constitution. All of it. This is why I've always seen "gay marriage" as a 14th Amendment issue. Either give everyone the same rights and benefits or no one.

What section of the Constitution would you like to discuss, if any?

 

[Divine Wind]

This love affair that some Americans have with guns, has it ever been studied?

Yes. It goes back to our heritage of tossing out our King and his bastard Redcoats then set up a working democracy. Something no other nation has done. Part of American Exceptionalism, donchaknow.

 

[Divine Wind]

"Urban environment " ? You mean weapon of war right ?

No, I mean cities like Hue and Ramadi.

You might want to talk to some people who served in the military.

 

[regent]

This love affair that some Americans have with guns, has it ever been studied?

Yes. It goes back to our heritage of tossing out our King and his bastard Redcoats then set up a working democracy. Something no other nation has done. Part of American Exceptionalism, donchaknow.

Are you suggesting that psychological studies have shown that the cause of some Americans to have a love affair with guns was because we fought the bastard redcoats? I always thought it was because of John Wayne. Does anyone else know of other studies, and how did other Americans resist the love affair?

 

[Divine Wind]

WRONG!

The Right to vote is inferred in Sec. 2 of the 14th, the 15th, the 17th, the 19th, the 24th and the 26th Amendments to COTUS; and in Art. I, sec 2, clause 1; Art. IV, sec. 2.

Each of these links are clear, the right to vote is inherent in our democratic republic and their clarity is pure; unlike the syntax here, "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.

.

Funny to watch you jump so quickly on declaring me wrong when the Politifact link covered the facts. Next time, why don't you just read the link and quote it?

Why are you so obstinate? Is it because I'm kicking your ass on our Second Amendment rights? Or is it because you want to rewrite the Constitution in your own image and people like me are in your way?