Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Gun control in the USA

1…78101213…34

Comments

  • #272
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Do you deny a modern bullet is a modification of the lead shot used at the time the 2nd Amendment was written?
    Yes or No.

    Do you deny the legal justification for current US guns laws and lack of regulation is the 2nd Amendment?
    Yes or No.

    By the way - the word 'bullet' means small ball.

    It is obviously, thats why its called a bullet..because it's distinct from a lead ball. But you suggested a hollow point was a modification of a 'bullet'. Unfortunately there is no distinct definition in the firearms world of what a 'bullet' consists of. For something to be a modification it has to enact a change in an item with a defined makeup.

    It doesn't matter what you or I think of US firearms law, the POTUS thinks the 2nd Amendment is still largely relevant and the legislation he will likely sign in the next while won't change anything..as I posted a while back with the pics...the only change to your typical AR15 will be that the stock doesnt collapse. So nothing changes and he knows that just as Clinton did, he's just appeasing the 'ban ban ban' crowd.


  • #273
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Blay wrote: »
    It is obviously, thats why its called a bullet..because it's distinct from a lead ball. But you suggested a hollow point was a modification of a 'bullet'. Unfortunately there is no distinct definition in the firearms world of what a 'bullet' consists of. For something to be a modification it has to enact a change in an item with a defined makeup.

    It doesn't matter what you or I think of US firearms law, the POTUS thinks the 2nd Amendment is still largely relevant and the legislation he will likely sign in the next while won't change anything..as I posted a while back with the pics...the only change to your typical AR15 will be that the stock doesnt collapse. So nothing changes and he knows that just as Clinton did, he's just appeasing the 'ban ban ban' crowd.

    The word 'bullet' has been in use since the 1550s - it is derived from the word 'Boulette' - French for small ball - a small lead ball as it happens.

    A bullet is a lead ball.

    A modern 'bullet' has been modified in many ways, the main one being the propellant is attached to the 'bullet' - this was a radical technological innovation resulting in a defined change in design and capabilities.
    In the same way as a car tyre is a modified version of a wagon wheel. Both are still wheels, but their capabilities are very different.

    So - you have an inside track to the White House do you and POTUS discussed his plans with you?
    I think not.

    I never mentioned hollow points...


  • #274
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    So - you have an inside track to the White House do you and POTUS discussed his plans with you?
    I think not.

    You don't need an inside track you just need a brain and basic knowledge of US gun culture. He will sign a ban not too different for two reasons:

    1. There is less consultation and research needed because it was all done under the Clinton admin. That way it's enacted as soon as possible making people feel like something is being done.

    2. Clinton style restrictions wouldn't be that bad in the eyes of the NRA and so he'll encounter less opposition from them and the Democrats might actually squeeze out a victory in the next election because of that. The Dem. party won't allow him to hamstring their chances in the next election by seriously pissing off the biggest lobby group in the US...which he would do if he went further than the restrictions imposed by the Clinton ban.

    But we'll wait and see..shooters in the US seem confident it will be Clinton-esque if it's going to happen at all.


  • #275
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    As least I have not had to resort to complete misrepresentation of what people say to further my argument. Nor adopt a patronizing and sneering tone.
    But then I do not find myself in the unenviable position of being a bedfellow with the fundamentalist Christian Right - perhaps that is why you have to resort to their tactics?

    Now you are getting just cheesy. I'm in the same bed as many people who have similar views on gun control, not just fundamentalist Christian Right.
    Oh noes. I have the same view on one topic with someone I disagree with on another. Whatever is to become of me. Agggh

    Please. Don't insult you own intelligence.
    I did not say anyone was anti-technology - I said there was no way they could predict technological advances and therefore had to write within the context of their time making reference to the available technology and the socio-political dynamic of creating a State that was, itself a socio-economic experiment and far from secure.

    Show me where the Bill of Rights restricts technological advances? The Bill of Rights wasn't written to determine the conditions for this "socio-economic experiment", it was written to prevent the experiment meddling with rights the founding fathers felt were inalienable.
    James Madison, Federalist 10, 1787 wrote:
    Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
    But you claim they would approve current US gun laws so perhaps you will explain where in this '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.'

    Have I? You seem now to want to put words in my mouth. Where did I say that. Mostly what I have done is quote the Founding Fathers themselves on the issue. So far, you haven't responded to their words, not mine.

    But since you mention it.
    Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on militia in the 2nd Amendment wrote:
    "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
    it indicates the right of the citizen as an individual to have weapons undreamt of at the time for personal use they being neither well regulated or acting for the security of a free State?
    James Madison wrote:
    "In the Constitution, the great ends of government were particularly enumerated; but all the means were not, nor could they all be, pointed out, without making the Constitution a complete code of laws: some discretionary power, and reasonable latitude, must be left to the judgment of the legislature."

    There is the intent. And as I have said the power to change gun laws lies within the legislature, and democratic or revolutionary change. But be aware that the people of the United States have organised themselves in such a manner that the rights of the Bill of Rights are now pinned in every State Constitution.

    Here is the Constitution that my state lives under:
    bear arms.]
    No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
    You will notice the use of their phrase 'well regulated'...
    I did. Did you notice what Jefferson had to say on the matter of the future of such a right?

    "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson


  • #276
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Blay wrote: »
    You don't need an inside track you just need a brain and basic knowledge of US gun culture. He will sign a ban not too different for two reasons:

    1. There is less consultation and research needed because it was all done under the Clinton admin. That way it's enacted as soon as possible making people feel like something is being done.

    2. Clinton style restrictions wouldn't be that bad in the eyes of the NRA and so he'll encounter less opposition from them and the Democrats might actually squeeze out a victory in the next election because of that. The Dem. party won't allow him to hamstring their chances in the next election by seriously pissing off the biggest lobby group in the US...which he would do if he went further than the restrictions imposed by the Clinton ban.

    Need a brain he says but doesn't realise a bullet is another name for a lead shot and tries to score points not realising he is exposing his ignorance of the subject ...oookaaayyyy.

    Have you not seen the NRA card carrying Democrats lining up to spout the 'we must bring in strict controls' line?

    Have you noticed the NRA's powerfully lobby has gone into hiding?
    I wonder why?


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    I am in no way an advocate or supporter of the NRA, however in this circumstance they are damned both ways. If they make a statement they are callous in the wake of the tragedy, if not they are in hiding.

    That really is a lose-lose position.


  • #278
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MadsL wrote: »


    Show me where the Bill of Rights restricts technological advances? The Bill of Rights wasn't written to determine the conditions for this "socio-economic experiment", it was written to prevent the experiment meddling with rights the founding fathers felt were inalienable.

    Where did I say it did?

    You claim that is my contention - prove it!

    Do you not understand the magnitude of the socio-economic experiment they were conducting?

    They were trying to design a whole new way of running a country - of course making it work and keeping it safe was their primary concern.






    Did you notice what Jefferson had to say on the matter of the future of such a right?

    "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

    Ever read what Jefferson had to say about freedom in general

    '"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."

    Of course by 'people' Jefferson meant white men only - I tend to take Jefferson's polemic with a pinch of salt seeing as it was a very select group it applied to - ' freedom of person' for example didn't include his slaves. Although to be fair to him he did free his children born to his slave Sally Hemings once they became adults. What a hero...

    BTW Did you miss this bit

    'Originally Posted by Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
    "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves..'
    How does a collection of individuals constitute 'a militia...properly formed'?


  • #279
    Fortyniner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭Fortyniner


    Gov Rick Perry and school staff 'carrying concealed'..

    'Texas Gov. Rick Perry expressed support for allowing school districts to determine whether teachers can carry concealed handguns in class, which at least one Texas district already permits.'

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/texas-gov-rick-perry-concealed-handguns-teachers/story?id=18005967#.UNDoauOTuGo

    Way to go - let's arm everybody. Sure that'll work!


  • #280
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MadsL wrote: »
    I am in no way an advocate or supporter of the NRA, however in this circumstance they are damned both ways. If they make a statement they are callous in the wake of the tragedy, if not they are in hiding.

    That really is a lose-lose position.

    They have shut down their FB page. Bit more than not making a statement...
    I think that is a definite statement that says - 'we are about to get hammered here - run away!!!!'


  • #281
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Need a brain he says but doesn't realise a bullet is another name for a lead shot and tries to score points not realising he is exposing his ignorance of the subject ...oookaaayyyy.

    Have you not seen the NRA card carrying Democrats lining up to spout the 'we must bring in strict controls' line?

    Have you noticed the NRA's powerfully lobby has gone into hiding?
    I wonder why?

    I didnt argue a bullet wasnt lead shot...I said there is no definition of how a bullet is made up...there are hollow points, FMJ, soft points, ballistic tips, steel core, flat nose, spitzer etc. There is no basic rifle bullet so these are not modifications..they are simply 'bullets'. Your claimed that some bullets are 'modified'..you can't modify a rifle bullet because there is no blueprint for a 'bullet'. For instancr, he was using a .223...there's no basic .223 round so no matter what he was using be it FMJ, hollow point etc it was not a 'modified' round of .223, it was just a round of .223. If Hornady or some other company came out with a lead core brass jacketed .223 round tomorrow...they wouldnt be 'modifying' the .223 bullet because theres no design for them to modify. I could go on and on debating the philosophy of bullet design and modification all night with ya but we're getting nowhere he so we might as well leave it here and debate the taste of sound...would probably be more productive despite its absurdity:pac:

    Clinton style legislation would be considered 'strict controls' in the US. He's going to stop the sale of AR15's etc. in their current form and allow them in a modified form just as the last ban did as I showed with the pics and he'll prevent the sale of new 30 round mags. AR15's and other rifles out there right now and their magazines will be allowed to remain and be bought/sold privately. So sayeth I. The NRA will make deals behind closed doors to minimise the impact it will have..the gun lobby can break a party's election candidate so you can bet Obama and the Democrats will consider their opinion carefully.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Where did I say it did?

    You claim that is my contention - prove it!

    OK let's put this to rest. Your point as I take it (complete with pictures of muskets) is that the founding fathers only meant the right to bear muskets and they never intented anything else to be used by the people.

    Is that your contention or not? If not, please make it clearer as you are not being clear.
    Ever read what Jefferson had to say about freedom in general

    '"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."
    Of course by 'people' Jefferson meant white men only
    Once more you have impressive powers to see into the minds of dead men.
    - I tend to take Jefferson's polemic with a pinch of salt seeing as it was a very select group it applied to - ' freedom of person' for example didn't include his slaves. Although to be fair to him he did free his children born to his slave Sally Hemings once they became adults. What a hero...

    His views on slavery were complex, he was an opponent of the slave trade for instance. Much like a drinker might support taxes on drink. What has this to do with the gun control debate?
    BTW Did you miss this bit

    'Originally Posted by Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
    "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves..'
    How does a collection of individuals constitute 'a militia...properly formed'?

    How does a collection of individuals constitute a democracy or nation?


  • #283
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Blay wrote: »
    It is obviously, thats why its called a bullet..because it's distinct from a lead ball. But you suggested a hollow point was a modification of a 'bullet'. Unfortunately there is no distinct definition in the firearms world of what a 'bullet' consists of. For something to be a modification it has to enact a change in an item with a defined makeup.

    Blay wrote: »
    I didnt argue a bullet wasnt lead shot...I said there is no definition of how a bullet is made up...there are hollow points, FMJ, soft points, ballistic tips, steel core, flat nose, spitzer etc. There is no basic rifle bullet so these are not modifications..they are simply 'bullets'. Your claimed that some bullets are 'modified'..you can't modify a rifle bullet because there is no blueprint for a 'bullet'. For instancr, he was using a .223...there's no basic .223 round so no matter what he was using be it FMJ, hollow point etc it was not a 'modified' round of .223, it was just a round of .223. If Hornady or some other company came out with a lead core brass jacketed .223 round tomorrow...they wouldnt be 'modifying' the .223 bullet because theres no design for them to modify. I could go on and on debating the philosophy of bullet design and modification all night with ya but we're getting nowhere he so we might as well leave it here and debate the taste of sound...would probably be more productive despite its absurdity:pac:

    .

    Yes- you did.

    Where did I mention hollow points exactly? Find me the quote since you insist I specifically referred to them.

    I said
    Those are the typical 'arms' referred to - not weapons capable of rabid fire using high velocity bullets which are often modified to cause maximum internal damage.

    Modified means changes to the original specification. The original specification for a bullet was a simple lead ball - this was later adapted to include a built-in propellant in a shell casing attached to the lead ball (or slug).

    Perhaps you missed this comment by rockonollie?
    @Blay....seeing as you have a stock of them, you may want to know that bullets such as hollow points, armor piercing etc are considered modified bullets, in fact anything that isn't a standard lead slug is considered modified. ie A design modified from the standard lead bullet.


  • #284
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    ...............


    Modified means changes to the original specification. The original specification for a bullet was a simple lead ball - this was later adapted to include a built-in propellant in a shell casing attached to the lead ball (or slug).

    Perhaps you missed this comment by rockonollie?

    .....if you think being hit with a lead ball is any less "fun" than being hit with a jacketed boat tailed round, you're barking up the wrong tree.


  • #285
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Any chance we can reverse out of this dead end on the design of bullets? Getting old.


  • #286
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MadsL wrote: »
    OK let's put this to rest. Your point as I take it (complete with pictures of muskets) is that the founding fathers only meant the right to bear muskets and they never intented anything else to be used by the people.

    Is that your contention or not? If not, please make it clearer as you are not being clear.

    My contention - in case anyone reading this is hard of thinking as I have already said this- is that the Founder's of the US saw a situation where local communities comprised of free farmers would combine in a properly regulated and constituted militia which, in the absence of a federal army, would form the main-line of defense should anyone attack.
    The British and the Spanish still had a large presence in North America so security was an issue. Not to mention those pesky indigenous people who had taken offensive just because their land was being stolen.

    They did not envisage a situation where individuals would use this amendment designed to enable the community as a whole to arm itself and fight collectively against outside aggression to justify weaponry purely for personal use with no regard to the community.

    Once more you have impressive powers to see into the minds of dead men.

    Yeah - I get that a lot. Maybe because I am a historian so spend most of my time researching dead men (and women), reading what they said - comparing that with what they did.

    I have been doing this a long time now...

    Did a lot of work on revolutions of the 18th century as it happens - and political theories too...and the Slave Trade...and Colonialism. Lectured on it for years but to be honest, I prefer the Early Modern Period but some would say I have a certain expertise in this stuff.

    His views on slavery were complex, he was an opponent of the slave trade for instance. Much like a drinker might support taxes on drink. What has this to do with the gun control debate?

    You are the one who kept flinging out quotes - you tell me.
    I simply pointed out that Jefferson - whom you seemed particularly fond of quoting - was a bit of a 'don't do as I do, do as I say' man.


    How does a collection of individuals constitute a democracy or nation?

    You know - that is exactly what the British were wondering and the Americans were trying to prove was possible.

    That free men could voluntarily combine to form an independent nation where all were of equal value (well - all white men at the time, but it was a start) and had an equal say. They were very taken with the ancient Athenian idea of democracy and republics see - add in a bit of John Locke, Montesquieu and the like and suddenly we have the notion of the Social Contract informing a system of government. No aristocracy, no monarchs and no private armies... or individuals who for whatever reason believed their personal desires should hold sway over all of society.


  • #287
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Yes- you did.

    Where did I mention hollow points exactly? Find me the quote since you insist I specifically referred to them.

    I said


    Modified means changes to the original specification. The original specification for a bullet was a simple lead ball - this was later adapted to include a built-in propellant in a shell casing attached to the lead ball (or slug).

    Perhaps you missed this comment by rockonollie?

    Fine..you're right..I'll say you're right for the sake of peace:pac: But seriously you make a convincing argument which I can't find a counter for. Good debate sir...we kept it civil at least:pac:


  • #288
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Nodin wrote: »
    .....if you think being hit with a lead ball is any less "fun" than being hit with a jacketed boat tailed round, you're barking up the wrong tree.

    Nodin - you disappoint me. :(

    If given the choice - lead ball fired from a musket held 100 feet away or jacketed boat tailed round fired from a high velocity assault rifle 1000 feet away - which one would you prefer?

    Plus - unless there is another musket already loaded it will be a few minutes before another lead ball can be fired.
    The assault rifle - bit of a different kettle of rapid fire eh.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Any chance we can reverse out of this dead end on the design of bullets? Getting old.

    Oh dear - did ye start something and discover ye can't finish it?


  • #289
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Blay wrote: »
    Fine..you're right..I'll say you're right for the sake of peace:pac: But seriously you make a convincing argument which I can't find a counter for. Good debate sir...we kept it civil at least:pac:

    You may call me Ma'am. ;)


  • #290
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    My contention - in case anyone reading this is hard of thinking as I have already said this- is that the Founder's of the US saw a situation where local communities comprised of free farmers would combine in a properly regulated and constituted militia which, in the absence of a federal army, would form the main-line of defense should anyone attack.
    The British and the Spanish still had a large presence in North America so security was an issue. Not to mention those pesky indigenous people who had taken offensive just because their land was being stolen.

    They did not envisage a situation where individuals would use this amendment designed to enable the community as a whole to arm itself and fight collectively against outside aggression to justify weaponry purely for personal use with no regard to the community.

    I live in a community of free individuals, I would trust that my neighbours would come to my aid (armed as they both have firearms) if my home was under attack from someone who wished us harm. That would appear to me to be entirely within the spirit of Bill of Rights.

    I'd also point out that my state has both (state-sponsored) official and numerous local unofficial militias. I suspect they are both 'well-regulated'.

    You are silent about that whole foreseeing technology/musket thing now, why is that?
    Yeah - I get that a lot. Maybe because I am a historian so spend most of my time researching dead men (and women), reading what they said - comparing that with what they did.

    I have been doing this a long time now...

    Did a lot of work on revolutions of the 18th century as it happens - and political theories too...and the Slave Trade...and Colonialism. Lectured on it for years but to be honest, I prefer the Early Modern Period but some would say I have a certain expertise in this stuff.
    Then I am suprised to see some rather cartoonish pictures that you paint of Jefferson politics, for instance.
    You are the one who kept flinging out quotes - you tell me.
    I simply pointed out that Jefferson - whom you seemed particularly fond of quoting - was a bit of a 'don't do as I do, do as I say' man.
    No. You scoffed at him, "what a hero" I think were your words. Quite an odd thing for a History lecturer to do.

    You know - that is exactly what the British were wondering and the Americans were trying to prove was possible.

    That free men could voluntarily combine to form an independent nation where all were of equal value (well - all white men at the time, but it was a start) and had an equal say. They were very taken with the ancient Athenian idea of democracy and republics see - add in a bit of John Locke, Montesquieu and the like and suddenly we have the notion of the Social Contract informing a system of government. No aristocracy, no monarchs and no private armies... or individuals who for whatever reason believed their personal desires should hold sway over all of society.

    And they framed that within context of a Constitution that guaranteed this Social Contract would not interfere with a man's property, including his firearms, did they not?


  • #291
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Nodin - you disappoint me. :(

    If given the choice - lead ball fired from a musket held 100 feet away or jacketed boat tailed round fired from a high velocity assault rifle 1000 feet away - which one would you prefer?
    ..........

    Both are potentially lethal. What you really should ask is whether or not I'd like to be shot at with an unrifled or a rifled weapon.

    Of course the main thing is that due to the way the US constitution is interpreted, your argument makes no sense, as otherwise they never would have done away with slavery.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Oh dear - did ye start something and discover ye can't finish it?

    I have had absolutely nothing to say on the design of bullets. I'm just bored of the stupid jibes about the french for bullet and the oh, "you said hollowpoints", "no I didn't" blah blah

    It is about a relevant as an argument about the paint colour technology in a thread about cars speeding. You said you had lectured in History, well you wouldn't let a first year go down that dead end of an argument. Is this the best it gets?


  • #293
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MadsL wrote: »
    I live in a community of free individuals, I would trust that my neighbours would come to my aid (armed as they both have firearms) if my home was under attack from someone who wished us harm. That would appear to me to be entirely within the spirit of Bill of Rights.

    I'd also point out that my state has both (state-sponsored) official and numerous local unofficial militias. I suspect they are both 'well-regulated'.

    You 'suspect' they are well regulated. If a group of heavily armed people lived in my community I would want to know they were regulated. :eek:
    You are silent about that whole foreseeing technology/musket thing now, why is that?

    And you sir are still flogging that dead horse.

    Do you contend they could see the future and so allowed for it? That they somehow knew that someday someone would invent 'arms' capable of rapid fire and pinpoint accuracy at a time when most people couldn't even afford a half* decent telescope?

    That is amazing considering the Industrial Revolution was in it's infancy in England and Franklin was still excited about lightening being electric.

    Then I am suprised to see some rather cartoonish pictures that you paint of Jefferson politics, for instance.


    No. You scoffed at him, "what a hero" I think were your words. Quite an odd thing for a History lecturer to do.

    I pointed out the hypocrisy of a slave owner (some of these slaves were his own children) pontificating about people being 'entitled to freedom of person.' A very valid observation for a history lecturer to make. It comes under the 'he said this - but did this' - notice any discrepancy students? Discuss.'

    You think a man who literally owns his own children as slaves isn't deserving of, at the very least, a 'scoff'.

    And they framed that within context of a Constitution that guaranteed this Social Contract would not interfere with a man's property, including his firearms, did they not?

    Forgetting the context of a fledgling nation not sure of it's survival are you? Or is that fact inconvenient?


  • #294
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Nodin wrote: »
    Both are potentially lethal. What you really should ask is whether or not I'd like to be shot at with an unrifled or a rifled weapon.

    Of course the main thing is that due to the way the US constitution is interpreted, your argument makes no sense, as otherwise they never would have done away with slavery.



    All muskets were unrifled - that was why rifles were called rifles - to distinguish them from muskets. I thought that was obvious since ye all seem to be experts on weaponry. :confused:
    My mistake. I won't assume people actually understand the terminology they are using in future.

    A thrown stone is also potentially lethal - but not as potentially lethal as a stone fired from a slingshot.


    Actually the fact that they did do away with slavery means they can also do away with the 2nd Amendment.


  • #295
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MadsL wrote: »
    I have had absolutely nothing to say on the design of bullets. I'm just bored of the stupid jibes about the french for bullet and the oh, "you said hollowpoints", "no I didn't" blah blah

    It is about a relevant as an argument about the paint colour technology in a thread about cars speeding. You said you had lectured in History, well you wouldn't let a first year go down that dead end of an argument. Is this the best it gets?

    If a first year student contradicted themselves, claimed something that was factually false and used incorrect terms I assure you - they would feel my wrath writ large in green ink. ;)

    But I would also be paid quite a lot of money to do that. You guys arn't paying me diddly yet I still try and educate ye.

    :pac:


  • #296
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You 'suspect' they are well regulated. If a group of heavily armed people lived in my community I would want to know they were regulated. :eek:

    There are regulations regarding the ownership of firearms in US, as much as you would wish to regard it as some kind of free for all, we have had law and order around here for a while. Back when this was a territory rather than a State it had to be sourced and paid for by communities and in some cases they had to help out using thier own armaments...wait what am I saying. We still elect and pay for our law enforcement locally, and citizens can still be called on to help out using their own armaments...I'm getting a little old to be called on but not by much.
    And you sir are still flogging that dead horse.
    Can you tell me what its intent was? ;)
    Do you contend they could see the future and so allowed for it? That they somehow knew that someday someone would invent 'arms' capable of rapid fire and pinpoint accuracy at a time when most people couldn't even afford a half* decent telescope?
    Do you think they were so dumb they didn't consider the needs of future generations? I have already posted one Madison quote about it.
    "In the Constitution, the great ends of government were particularly enumerated; but all the means were not, nor could they all be, pointed out, without making the Constitution a complete code of laws: some discretionary power, and reasonable latitude, must be left to the judgment of the legislature."

    Our argument is not that my position argues with the "judgment of the legislature" but your position does. I have already shown you the mechanism to change that fact, but it remains a fact that the American people have continued to uphold and expand the right to bear arms. If you want to change that, go right ahead.
    That is amazing considering the Industrial Revolution was in it's infancy in England and Franklin was still excited about lightening being electric.
    What I find more amazing is such a document has needed less amendments than the Irish one formulated in 1937.
    I pointed out the hypocrisy of a slave owner (some of these slaves were his own children) pontificating about people being 'entitled to freedom of person.' A very valid observation for a history lecturer to make. It comes under the 'he said this - but did this' - notice any discrepancy students? Discuss.'
    Well you lock up your knives for the protection of others, yet refuse to engage on the whole issue of whether knives should be locked up by force of law ;)
    You think a man who literally owns his own children as slaves isn't deserving of, at the very least, a 'scoff'.
    I'd say you seem fond of dead ends in threads. Jefferson's attitude to slavery is one such dead end. Will we get back to the issue of gun control? I'm sure lurkers would thank us for it.



    Forgetting the context of a fledgling nation not sure of it's survival are you? Or is that fact inconvenient?
    Most nations still fear for their survival, and they have a habit of putting people in uniforms and training them with weapons. Some, like Switzerland and Israel insist they keep those weapons when they become civilians again.


  • #297
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You guys arn't paying me diddly yet I still try and educate ye.

    :pac:

    Worth every penny ;) :pac:


    Oh and aren't -2 marks.


  • #298
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    And as wikipedia separated out Breivik and other 'poitically motivated' rampages you are missing at least 75 deaths from your figures, as well as further 3 European incidents with a total death toll of 75+7+7+34 = 123 deaths.

    Ok, why don't we just combine all the incidents (rampage, school, worker, racial&political, familicide and home invasion) and compare the numbers all at once?
    US: 272 incidents , 1828 deaths
    EU: 235 incidents , 1461 deaths

    Now even without correcting for the population difference, the US has a higher number of incidents as well as a higher number of deaths. Once we correct for population (using your factor of 2.37 to keep you happy) we get

    US: 645 incidents , 4332 deaths
    EU: 235 incidents , 1461 deaths

    This means, overall, the US has 2.74 times as many incidents as Europe, with 2.97 times as many deaths.


  • #299
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    But here lies the rub, and you did not answer my question about why count deaths rather than incidents. Leaving aside the "high-score' mentality in rampage killers, surely in trying to understand the prevalence of this event it makes more sense to count the number of shooters, not the numbers of victims.

    Besides the fact that I did compare the number of incidents, I did explain why death counts are relevant, you respond to it later in this post.
    MadsL wrote: »
    What population factor are you using, because the population of Europe is (being lazy and asking google) 739,165,030 and the US 311,591,917 which equals a scaling factor of 2.37 not the 2.75 you used above.

    Can I have a source for your assertion that the US has "just over a third the population of Europe" The US is fairly easily defined, Europe not so much, so before I accuse you of being "illiterate and innumerate" could you show how you arrive at this scaling figure please.

    A simple source for your 2.75 will sort that out.

    Robindch linked to it already, in this post. Even using your number of 2.37 brings the number of incidents, and deaths, in the US significantly higher the Europe.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Based on a scaling factor that so far seems to be your own.

    Your factor of 2.37 is only approx 14% lower than what I used. Even using your factor, the US has over twice the rampage, nearly 3 times the school and nearly 10 times the workplace incidents.
    MadsL wrote: »
    That's a different argument, as it is clear that gun control didn't make individual rampage killers in Germany or Norway less 'effective'. As you have left 123 deaths out of the mix as 'political' deaths, the picture is muddied.

    Thats because the gun control in Norway was too weak. Breivik (legally) got his hands on a semi-automatic gun, the type that most people here would want banned outright.
    MadsL wrote: »
    I'm simply asking for a factor of your calculations that you saw fit not to include, so absolutely no need for the sneering tone.

    My post had 850/310*whatever three separate times in it, could you not figure it out?


  • #300
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Nodin wrote: »
    Both are potentially lethal.

    That's irrelevant, toilets are potentially lethal. The real question is are they equally lethal? Pretty sure most modern fire arms would be far more lethal than a musket (more damaging ammo, faster at firing, better accuracy).
    Nodin wrote: »
    Of course the main thing is that due to the way the US constitution is interpreted, your argument makes no sense, as otherwise they never would have done away with slavery.

    Can you explain this? I don't know much about the US constitution.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Ok, why don't we just combine all the incidents (rampage, school, worker, racial&political, familicide and home invasion) and compare the numbers all at once?
    US: 272 incidents , 1828 deaths
    EU: 235 incidents , 1461 deaths

    So we are now talking about the EU? With a population of 500 million rather than your 850 million figure you used earlier???

    Let's just stop for a second. You describing the US as having just 37 more incidents than Europe with it's (largely) stringent gun controls. That's all? yet people insist on painting the US as being somehow out of control, yet it is within 15% of Europe's baseline figure. And we are notably ignoring terrorist attacks in those numbers on incidents.
    Now even without correcting for the population difference, the US has a higher number of incidents as well as a higher number of deaths. Once we correct for population (using your factor of 2.37 to keep you happy) we get

    If we are correcting for population using the EU population and not Europe's population we get a factor of 1.6 not 2.37 (502m/311m)
    This means, overall, the US has 2.74 times as many incidents as Europe, with 2.97 times as many deaths.

    No, it means the US has 1.8 times as many incidents per head, not nearly as high as you claim.

    I think you better clarity as to what you are counting as "Europe" and where you get 810 million population from.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement