|
Post by Optimus on Feb 23, 2017 20:25:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 24, 2017 1:46:35 GMT -5
It would almost certainly get overturned if Gorsuch gets confirmed first.
But think about why. The majority on the fourth circuit would make it sound like their ruling is completely consistent with Heller. So why would the supreme court overturn it then? Maybe because it's obvious the fourth's ruling isn't actually as consistent with Heller as they want to make it sound?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 24, 2017 7:00:33 GMT -5
This won't last if there's any intelligence left in the world, because it's simply more science denialism from the government. "Style over substance" has never been more true than with claims that "assault weapons" as currently defined by Maryland are "weapons of war" that must be kept from the hands of the public, when functionally identical weapons without modern military "style" are still readily available. Pure political theatre. It's on the same order as allowing Superman to use all his powers, AS LONG AS he never takes off his Clark Kent costume. Any serious effort to get guns off the streets will HAVE to go after ALL semi-autos, regardless of appearance, and that's never, ever, ever going to fly. So we get bullshit laws like this so that the politicians get credit for "doing something." OTOH, it's another fine example of gooberment transparency, whereby they reveal to those with even a smattering of knowledge that politicians know far less than most people about anything but getting re-elected. I've got a pic around here somewhere... Gun A is Clark Kent. Gun B is Clark Kent in a Superman costume, minus his reporter glasses. ETA: And it's perhaps worth pointing out to Judge Robert King that "weapons of war" in the long-gun category inevitably have a selective fire switch, which ALREADY makes them illegal to own for all but the richest and most politically-connected citizens... and that the guns covered by his ruling DO NOT have a selective fire switch, disqualifying them for the label he so erroneously attached to them. Perhaps judges should receive a copy of Black's Law when they assume the bench? Or is that not covered in there?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 24, 2017 10:46:25 GMT -5
Good for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals for applying a little common sense mixed in with some hard, but obvious truths. Unless the deer are rocking body armor and and have opposable thumbs so they can shoot back, nobody needs an assault weapon. Simply because someone wants one is not a good enough reason to have one. Militarized hunting with weapons of mass destruction is not the Next Big Thing.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 24, 2017 12:43:07 GMT -5
Okay, so let me preface this by saying I don't know much about weaponry. I've never owned a firearm, unless you count different versions of KISS's Love Gun, in which case I have an arsenal.
Don, you're basically saying that there's no difference between the 2 guns, besides the fact that one looks much more bad ass, however, doesn't that one have a much greater firing capacity in as so far as it's got a clip that holds a lot more bullets. I mean, I get the other one was used in a school shooting, but I could use a musket and go on a killing spree. Isn't the 2nd one more dangerous?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 24, 2017 13:21:14 GMT -5
Okay, so let me preface this by saying I don't know much about weaponry. I've never owned a firearm, unless you count different versions of KISS's Love Gun, in which case I have an arsenal. Don, you're basically saying that there's no difference between the 2 guns, besides the fact that one looks much more bad ass, however, doesn't that one have a much greater firing capacity in as so far as it's got a clip that holds a lot more bullets. I mean, I get the other one was used in a school shooting, but I could use a musket and go on a killing spree. Isn't the 2nd one more dangerous? Note in the picture I posted that both weapons come with 10-round magazines standard. So no, it doesn't hold more cartridges as pictured. They both hold the same number of rounds. AND those particular rounds are the most anemic center-fire caliber on the market; good for squirrels and rabbits, and just maybe a person if the victim is having a particularly unlucky day. As stated, the "scary black rifle" in that picture is a dressed-up squirrel gun. A real Clark Kent sporting a rental-mart Superman costume. Conflating magazine size and "scary black gun appearance" while totally ignoring caliber is where all this has come from in the first place. I can get (or easily self-manufacture) a 30-round magazine for either of the guns in the picture. AAMOF, in that particular case, the two guns use interchangeable magazines. Capacity restrictions are a separate issue from the perceived scariness of a weapon, or it should be. What counts are A) caliber, and B) magazine capacity. All the rest is kerfuffle intended to dazzle and amuse the masses. To put 10-round magazines in perspective; my "subcompact" handgun, designed to be easily concealed because of CC laws, comes standard with two magazines; one for 13 rounds and the other for 16. The only way to tell the difference between those magazines and one that has been legally restricted to 10 rounds is to remove them from the gun and physically examine them. That subcompact also fires just as fast as any other semi-auto gun, I can change magazines in less than two seconds, and in the close quarters usually found in mass shootings, it's just as accurate and deadly as any "scary black rifle"... but immeasurably more maneuverable and, as I mentioned, concealable. A "scary black rifle ban" won't solve the problem of mass shootings; at best it may kick the can down the road to handguns.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 24, 2017 16:07:21 GMT -5
Okay, so let me preface this by saying I don't know much about weaponry. I've never owned a firearm, unless you count different versions of KISS's Love Gun, in which case I have an arsenal. Don, you're basically saying that there's no difference between the 2 guns, besides the fact that one looks much more bad ass, however, doesn't that one have a much greater firing capacity in as so far as it's got a clip that holds a lot more bullets. I mean, I get the other one was used in a school shooting, but I could use a musket and go on a killing spree. Isn't the 2nd one more dangerous? First off, forget about the slippery slope argument that a ban on assault weapons would "kick the can" down the road to banning handguns. It didn't happen before and it won't happen now. That's just a scare tactic. Here's another scare tactic. What does an assault weapon actually DO to the human body?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 24, 2017 18:36:34 GMT -5
So are we talking about an AR-15 here, or an M16? Because the article's about one, and the video's about the other.
Actually, we're talking about both, or neither, depending on what we're talking about. That's more of the conflating going on here.
The article quoted above is (either stupidly or maliciously) titled "What does an assault weapon actually DO to the human body?" which is the first clue there's some conflating going on. The correct title would be "What does a 5.56×45mm NATO round actually DO to the human body?" Because I can buy guns other than "assault weapons" that fire that round, and I can also buy an AR-15 or M16 platform that fires rounds less powerful than that one.
The title of the article itself demonstrates the lack of knowledge (or naked agenda) of the whole editorial chain involved.
Both guns shoot 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition, which is the caliber of ammunition shown in the video. But here's the thing; you can also buy any number of "deer rifles" that shoot the same exact caliber, but aren't outlawed by scary black gun laws. And you can also buy the AR-15 and M16 platforms chambered for anything from the deadly cartridge shown in the video to the anemic "squirrel gun" caliber of .22LR.
Again, it boils down to A) caliber and B) magazine capacity. The rest is so much silliness.
And, of course, there will never be a handgun ban. I think I made that plain. In the short run, though, politicians can get out in front of the gun control crowd and claim they're going to solve the problem by banning scary black rifles. That excuse will work for a few more years, perhaps. Or perhaps not.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 24, 2017 18:46:09 GMT -5
Why caliber matters:
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 24, 2017 18:53:49 GMT -5
Personally I think we should get rid of everything in that picture, especially the quarter.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 24, 2017 19:07:06 GMT -5
Personally I think we should get rid of everything in that picture, especially the quarter. That wouldn't impact me. I'm a 9mm guy. That said, the quarter is definitely the most dangerous, from a social stability standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 25, 2017 0:05:05 GMT -5
So are we talking about an AR-15 here, or an M16? Because the article's about one, and the video's about the other. Actually, we're talking about both, or neither, depending on what we're talking about. That's more of the conflating going on here. The article quoted above is (either stupidly or maliciously) titled "What does an assault weapon actually DO to the human body?" which is the first clue there's some conflating going on. The correct title would be "What does a 5.56×45mm NATO round actually DO to the human body?" Because I can buy guns other than "assault weapons" that fire that round, and I can also buy an AR-15 or M16 platform that fires rounds less powerful than that one. The title of the article itself demonstrates the lack of knowledge (or naked agenda) of the whole editorial chain involved. Both guns shoot 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition, which is the caliber of ammunition shown in the video. But here's the thing; you can also buy any number of "deer rifles" that shoot the same exact caliber, but aren't outlawed by scary black gun laws. And you can also buy the AR-15 and M16 platforms chambered for anything from the deadly cartridge shown in the video to the anemic "squirrel gun" caliber of .22LR. Again, it boils down to A) caliber and B) magazine capacity. The rest is so much silliness. Here's what I'm talking about. Nancy Lanza, 52, perpetrator's mother (shot at home)School personnel Rachel D'Avino, 29, teacher's aide Dawn Hochsprung, 47, principal Anne Marie Murphy, 52, teacher's aide Lauren Rousseau, 30, teacher Mary Sherlach, 56, school psychologist Victoria Leigh Soto, 27, teacherStudents Charlotte Bacon, 6 Daniel Barden, 7 Olivia Engel, 6 Josephine Gay, 7 Dylan Hockley, 6 Madeleine Hsu, 6 Catherine Hubbard, 6 Chase Kowalski, 7 Jesse Lewis, 6 Ana Márquez-Greene, 6 James Mattioli, 6 Grace McDonnell, 7 Emilie Parker, 6 Jack Pinto, 6 Noah Pozner, 6 Caroline Previdi, 6 Jessica Rekos, 6 Avielle Richman, 6 Benjamin Wheeler, 6 Allison Wyatt, 6 There's your "stupidly or maliciously." There's your "conflating." There's your "lack of knowledge" and "naked agenda." There's your "scary black gun laws." There's your "silliness." There's ALL of that in 27 dead, bullet-riddled bodies including 20 slaughtered children, Don and anyone who says their 2nd Amendment right comes before the right of children not to have some lunatic cull them like sheep has some seriously twisted priorities. You are now free to go ahead and retort with some more of your usual evil gubbment smack that is so tired and tedious and played out over the corpses of murdered children. Personally I think we should get rid of everything in that picture, especially the quarter. That wouldn't impact me. I'm a 9mm guy. That said, the quarter is definitely the most dangerous, from a social stability standpoint. A 9mm would impact you just fine if it hit you in the right place. A quarter? Much safer from a social stability standpoint and kills fewer schoolchildren and their teachers.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 25, 2017 5:09:02 GMT -5
Nice argumentum ad passiones there, ohio. I'm just not sure how a list of people killed is a refutation of the argument that what matters is A) caliber and B) magazine capacity. I've been arguing that while part of the Maryland restrictions may have an impact (magazine capacity), that the lawmakers have been silly to base the rest of the restrictions on cosmetics rather than the issue of utmost importance (caliber), all in the service of political theater.
If your real concern is all those people killed, you should be saying "let's address caliber instead of scary features" by now. Defending the silliness of laws that won't achieve your objective is probably a counter-productive strategy. Of course, that often happens when one defines one's stance by politics instead of science.
A partisan rant defending stupid laws passed by stupid people is not the way to move society forward. Tackling problems based on actual science is.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 25, 2017 17:30:27 GMT -5
Nice argumentum ad passiones there, ohio. I'm just not sure how a list of people killed is a refutation of the argument that what matters is A) caliber and B) magazine capacity. I've been arguing that while part of the Maryland restrictions may have an impact (magazine capacity), that the lawmakers have been silly to base the rest of the restrictions on cosmetics rather than the issue of utmost importance (caliber), all in the service of political theater. If your real concern is all those people killed, you should be saying "let's address caliber instead of scary features" by now. Defending the silliness of laws that won't achieve your objective is probably a counter-productive strategy. Of course, that often happens when one defines one's stance by politics instead of science. When the day comes that someone like you who places a higher value on firearms than human life tells someone like me what I should be saying and I pay ANY attention to that crap, will hopefully be my last day drawing breath because if your real concern isn't all those people killed we have NOTHING to talk about. Everybody's a partisan here, Don, and you're as partisan as anybody else, so get off your high horse. I gave you science. The science of what happens to the human body is struck by a bullet from an assault weapon. If you don't care for that science, that's hardly my problem. There's nothing stupid about laws that keep assault weapons out of the hands of people who aren't responsible enough to own and use one and only a really stupid person would think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 25, 2017 18:31:40 GMT -5
Nice argumentum ad passiones there, ohio. I'm just not sure how a list of people killed is a refutation of the argument that what matters is A) caliber and B) magazine capacity. I've been arguing that while part of the Maryland restrictions may have an impact (magazine capacity), that the lawmakers have been silly to base the rest of the restrictions on cosmetics rather than the issue of utmost importance (caliber), all in the service of political theater. If your real concern is all those people killed, you should be saying "let's address caliber instead of scary features" by now. Defending the silliness of laws that won't achieve your objective is probably a counter-productive strategy. Of course, that often happens when one defines one's stance by politics instead of science. A partisan rant defending stupid laws passed by stupid people is not the way to move society forward. Tackling problems based on actual science is. So... are you/would you be okay with some/some more goverment restrictions on firearms - as long as they are specifically in regard to more lethal calibers, magazine capacities, etc., i.e., killing power?
|
|