The debate over assault weapons

[Pertinacious Tom]

I'd respond to him again about it being about mag capacity and not ammo, but his happy delusion that it was about ammo would remain. He would wait a few weeks and go right on slurring my meaning. Tom has no sense of honor when his preciouses are the topic.  

Not sure what "it" you're talking about. In the assault weapons ban proposed by TeamD Senators, my wife's gun is naughty because it has a telescoping stock. That's the one thing that distinguishes it from a non-naughty one.

And they treat the two rounds you posted the same, so they are obviously morons who can't tell the difference, as you said.

 

[Mark K]

Not sure what "it" you're talking about. In the assault weapons ban proposed by TeamD Senators, my wife's gun is naughty because it has a telescoping stock. That's the one thing that distinguishes it from a non-naughty one.

And they treat the two rounds you posted the same, so they are obviously morons who can't tell the difference, as you said.

And once again you proved that even you don't believe it was about the ammo. 

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Mark;

I don't believe anyone has said it's only about ammo ,  regardless of caliber.

could you cite that ?

 

[jocal505]

A "sense of honor" is what drives honesty, IMO. Honor allows plenty of room to admit one's mistakes,

MLK was a human and reeked of honor?

 

[jocal505]

Mark;

I don't believe anyone has said it's only about ammo ,  regardless of caliber.

could you cite that ?

Tom has invested almost two of his years by generating panic about the word rimfire. Big fish, small pond, needs depth. Tom's journey brought us the dogball phenomenon..

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Others have spent nearly two years denying the Senators legislation says what it does.

cite anyone saying "only ammo"

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Not sure what "it" you're talking about. In the assault weapons ban proposed by TeamD Senators, my wife's gun is naughty because it has a telescoping stock. That's the one thing that distinguishes it from a non-naughty one.

And they treat the two rounds you posted the same, so they are obviously morons who can't tell the difference, as you said.

And once again you proved that even you don't believe it was about the ammo. 

That would probably explain why I never said "it" was about the ammo. Still don't know what "it" is in this context.

The picture you posted appeared to be about ammo, not magazines, and I agree that the TeamD Senators are morons because they can't distinguish between the two rounds you posted. Those rounds have different characteristics even in a single shot gun, so whatever "it" is in this context, it can't be magazine capacity.

 

[jocal505]

Hey @jocal505, since you accuse Tom of cherry picking, do you have any of winkler’s own statements that contradict his view?  

Tom quotes Winkler accurately, but narrowly. Winkler shows a lot of awareness of the problem of present-tense AW popularity butthurt. The matter is off-track, IMO.

One of the fun things about reading Winkler is that he gets directly to the point. Tom has the "unwell" thing going on, which shows when he chooses to describe Winkler, simply and binarily, as a "gun control advocate" (see Tom's post above, somewhere).  Winker is more a vibrant academic, IMO. He is widely quoted on constitutional scholarship, and on strict scrutiny nuances as well. He is a pretty wild writer, on off-the-wall subjects, at times.

He does not support insurrection theory. He is not a fan of Scalia. He is not the sort to twist historical accounts. He recognizes enough authority to support modern gun restrictions, and Mr. Winkler projects this into the future.

The jocal creepy database has about 52 entries under a file called "Adam Winkler, with my thanks". Winkler is his own man and he is sensitive about AW popularity. Yet he writes that popularity does not drive constitutionality.

After meeting the boys in the SA Gun Club, and after experiencing how they roll, I am less sensitive than Adam Winkler about all their butthurt. 

 

[jocal505]

Joey, that was a really long winded way of saying, “ No I have nothing from winkler himself that contradicts his other statements “. 

 Care to comment on his actual statements above rather than what he might have said about other topics?

Use the search function. I've used Winkler to make you and Tom look bad, at will. 

For starters, this writing was Winkler in 2016, then Kolbe happened in 2017. Furthermore, the enormity of AW mayhem snowballed after the former AW ban expired. The clincher now is that high school education itself is becoming  endangered by the mix of teenage hormones and AW's.

We find that Mr. Winker is trying to play popularity and politics wrt gun policy, and these three are not his forte. He wants to use misguided popular whims to manage gun control. All we need to know is that, basically, Winkler's work predicted Kolbe.  All we need to get our heads around here is that Winkler's scholarship supports the constitutionality of restricting AW's, as do several Heller contributions.

Pragmatically, the future will probably be driven and guided by public safety, IMO.  Screw Winkler's regards for AW butthurt. 

 

[chinabald]

Tom has invested almost two of his years by generating panic about the word rimfire. Big fish, small pond, needs depth. Tom's journey brought us the dogball phenomenon..

If you had the honesty to say, Tom this rule includes dogballs and it probably shouldn't because they really aren't the weapons that we are concerned with. Collapsible stocks don't make dogball rifles any more or less dangerous then dogball rifles without. 

If you would say that, instead of parsing words we wouldn't have had to put up with 2 years of dogball talk. Instead you addressed zero of what he had to say and eventually your elk started bringing up dogballs in every thread to try to goad Tom into more talk about dogballs. 

I understand your point though. To give even a smidgen on this argument, to concede even one point might weaken your argument in later posts. Which is that creeping incrementalism that so many gun owners are also afraid of. If dogballs are ok, are goatballs next, and then pigballs, and next thing you know you are losing ground on cowballs. 

 

[atoyot]

As an address of recent (last two or three decades) of shootings involving multiple, random targets at malls, theatres, and schools, what would the group here say to presentation of a bill before Congress making it illegal to transfer by electronic means, directlly or indirectly, in a way intented to reach the general population, by virtual or hard copy, the face, likeness, description, or identity of the perpetrator of "mass shootings",  for a period of two (2) years?  Penalty: The Editor or GM of such entity is jailed for not less than five (5) years.

Why do that?   Well, if it saves one life of course.  Passing such a bill takes away nothing in the way of other efforts on the table.   A multi-faceted approach to the problem of violence in US society is called for, and the above is worth trying.  It hurts nobody to withhold the name and face of a jackass fuckhead douchnozzle and it serves NO purpose to put it out there.

And before anyone tries that silly "Constitutional" thing - recall that the founders could never have envisioned the Internet, radio, television, facsimile, e-mail, wirephoto, Morse code, videotape, fully-automatic color control (VITS), or any host of things in part or in whole that were not around at the time of the quill pen & ink, or even the single-sheet printing press. 

It's worth a try, you know, like the AWB was.  Give it a run for the money while we continue to bicker about what people should or should not own; we don't have to stop talking about further gun control just because of one bill.

This may deserve its own thread.....

 

[Olsonist]

Look, the SA Gun Club couldn't even give a fuck about self murders when that's their own tribe who are offing themselves. So do you really think they care about mallrats or school children getting used for target practice? In their eyes, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood, any blood.

 

[bpm57]

couldn't even give a fuck about self murders when that's their own tribe who are offing themselves

Well, you are partially right. I don't concern myself with the chosen method when reading about suicides.

Then again, you probably imagine that in the absence of firearms they would not commit suicide.

 

[lonesailor]

Maybe we should censor the media from talking about suicide and people will forget they can kill themself and it will go away!

 

[Mark K]

Mark;

I don't believe anyone has said it's only about ammo ,  regardless of caliber.

could you cite that ?

Tom keeps saying our lawmakers can't tell the difference, right? Ask him to show why he thinks that. 

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Tom keeps saying our lawmakers can't tell the difference, right? Ask him to show why he thinks that. 

I have given the reason several times. They treat guns that fire those two rounds the same. That's an indication that they can't tell the difference. Can you name an indication that they can tell the difference? Didn't think so. So it's 1-0 in the evidence dept. They're morons or victims of mental illness and can't tell the difference, just as you said.

Hey Jeff, will you ask Mark what this mysterious "it" is that's all about magazine capacity? I'm curious but of course he will treat jocal with respect but not me so I won't get an answer if I ask again.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Look, the SA Gun Club couldn't even give a fuck about self murders when that's their own tribe who are offing themselves. So do you really think they care about mallrats or school children getting used for target practice? In their eyes, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood, any blood.

That's true and I admitted it in this post.

There is also a list of exemptions for various models of rimfire rifles. It says, in part:

‘‘Ruger  10/22  Autoloading  Carbine  (w/o folding stock)
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Compact
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Sporter
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Target

The bolded part is the problem. My wife put a telescoping stock on her gun, indicating her disdain for the lives of children.

After all, disdain for the lives of children is the ONLY reason someone would convert a Ruger 10/22 into a weapon of war by putting a telescoping stock on it.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Tom has invested almost two of his years by generating panic about the word rimfire. Big fish, small pond, needs depth. Tom's journey brought us the dogball phenomenon..

If you had the honesty to say, Tom this rule includes dogballs and it probably shouldn't because they really aren't the weapons that we are concerned with

Joe thinks the bans should include squirrel guns like mine and he demonstrated this by destroying his. That's an honest answer.

More broadly, the problem people here seem to have with my pointing out some of the ridiculous examples of guns included in "assault" weapon bans is not that including them is ridiculous. It's that I point it out.

The honest answer, by and large, seems to me to be that guns like mine really are among the guns they want to ban. They just want to talk about how they're banning "AR15's" while doing it. And they sure as hell don't want any Uncooperative types reading and quoting the law to prove that's BS.

 

[chinabald]

Joe thinks the bans should include squirrel guns like mine and he demonstrated this by destroying his. That's an honest answer.

More broadly, the problem people here seem to have with my pointing out some of the ridiculous examples of guns included in "assault" weapon bans is not that including them is ridiculous. It's that I point it out.

The honest answer, by and large, seems to me to be that guns like mine really are among the guns they want to ban. They just want to talk about how they're banning "AR15's" while doing it. And they sure as hell don't want any Uncooperative types reading and quoting the law to prove that's BS.

Then he and his elk should have the honesty to say they don’t want us to have dogballs, because they don’t have any balls of their own. 

 

[jocal505]

We are forced to talk about dogballs? How did we get here? We sound fucking lost and silly here, gentlemen.

CB, I don't care for the rimfire crisis, or the dogball crisis. You want a concession about the legislative use of the word rimfire, and there it is. Such concessions lead to outlandish off-road excursions, I find, and they are under-appreciated.

Reason, fairness, and honor have been abandoned by the avid gun guys. For example,, when one is nice to AGIC, and when one changes his outlook and policies to accommodate AGIC type butthurt, adamance and attitude is the result. Surprise, there is no benefit to be found in placating unreasonable extremists.

Instead, I go back to common sense. In the real world I relate to, we don't need battle guns all about, especially if they are causing problems, increasingly.  I feel they gotta go. To generate mass , extended confusion by mixing dogballs's in is stoopid. THEN YOU DEFEND THE DOGBALL PHENOMENON which we find on our boards?? Enjoy away. You'll find me in a different orbit.

If you rebut my opposition to AW's with historical notions, or constitutional notions,  I will increase your butthurt, using a combination of  Scalia, facts, emperical studies, and solid scholarship which is superior to Scalia's.