quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It helps when you begin with the assumption that it's a constitutional right, period, and when the Supreme Court affirm it they are in accord with the Constitution, and when they don't, they aren't. Simple.
And don't the exact opposite assumptions help you, Lyr, and Tom? I'm confused...
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn's argument, if I'm not mistaken, was to point out how in terms of history, the modern court interpretations of the 2nd are something new, and to point out that the supposed obviousness and immutability of the modern reading isn't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would submit that the results of that trial, which has been the precedent for all following federal weapons bans, is a significantly greater violation of constitutional principles...
Why? Note that you aren't saying that the mechanisms of the trial itself are flawed here; you're claiming that the results of Miller violate constitutional principles more than Heller does. That seems highly suspect to me.
In absentia rulings tend to violate a defendants right to due process provided by the 14th amendment. The case was actually remanded to district court for further arguments and clarifications, but this never happened because the defendants were dead.
quote: It helps when you begin with the assumption that it's a constitutional right, period, and when the Supreme Court affirm it they are in accord with the Constitution, and when they don't, they aren't. Simple.
Actually, it helps when you look at the actual rulings, history, and have a bit of an understanding of constitutional law. Ruling in absentia is something that judges and lawyers avoid as much as possible because doing so often leads to claims of rights violation based on the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court in this case knew that no challenge could be filed by the defendants, because they were dead, but there's an argument to be made that due process was still violated in the ruling.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lyrhawn's argument, if I'm not mistaken, was to point out how in terms of history, the modern court interpretations of the 2nd are something new, and to point out that the supposed obviousness and immutability of the modern reading isn't.
Lyrhawn has yet to actually provide any evidence to support his assertion that the supreme court viewed ownership of firearms as dependent on membership in the militia for 200 years after the constitution was written, and was not an individual right as was asserted by Stone_Wolf. In fact, the standard model of 2nd amendment interpretation asserts that firearms ownership is an individual right. The standard model interpretation is the oldest interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
The actual interpretation the supreme court held through the 19th and early 20th was that ownership of arms was an individual right, but said right could be limited only to weapons that were useful in the purposes of a militia. US vs Miller found that there was no evidence that a sawed off shotgun furthered the aims of an organized militia. The fact that such weapons were used in wartime activities wasn't presented to the court because no defense at all was present during the proceedings.
No decision of whether the right to bear arms was one accorded to the states or to individuals was actually laid down by the supreme court until 1990, because it was assumed to be an individual right until that point. US v. Verdugo-Urquidez was the first case to define the rights granted in the first, second, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments as individual rights. Perpich vs. DoD found that the National Guard was not the militia referred to in the 2nd amendment and laid out the definition of the National Guard as an organized militia, and all non-enlisted individuals as an unorganized militia.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lyrhawn's argument, if I'm not mistaken, was to point out how in terms of history, the modern court interpretations of the 2nd are something new, and to point out that the supposed obviousness and immutability of the modern reading isn't.
I didn't think anyone was saying their reading is obvious or immutable. They're just arguing for why their reading is correct.
You may disagree, but the dismissive straw man (Assume you're right and everyone else is wrong) wasn't the best way to show your disagreement.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In absentia rulings tend to violate a defendants right to due process provided by the 14th amendment.
Sure, they can. Is it your belief that Miller has led to a lot of twisted in absentia rulings since then? Or that it's been used repeatedly since to violate the due process of a defendant?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That's great and all, but not actually pertinent to the discussion Tom and I were having.
I think it is quite pertinent to the discussion in general.
Pertinent to -this- conversation where NO ONE has ever said that because bearing arms is a right it should not be restricted in anyway? What was said was -correct- but utterly immaterial as no one has asserted otherwise.
In fact, every single participant in this conversation has either said nothing against current restrictions or is calling for more restrictions.
It is comments like this and Orincoro's that frustrate me so much, as you guys are arguing with ghosts.
If you want to make up things for opponents to say and then rebuff them, please keep it out of our legitimate, actual discussion.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In absentia rulings tend to violate a defendants right to due process provided by the 14th amendment.
Sure, they can. Is it your belief that Miller has led to a lot of twisted in absentia rulings since then? Or that it's been used repeatedly since to violate the due process of a defendant?
My argument is that Miller's finding was not particularly constitutional because the supreme court effectively ignored due process by ruling in absentia. As a result, it's precedent should be considered tainted. Realistically, it's a response to your claim that Heller and McDonald were just acts of activist courts ignoring precedent, when said precedent was actually set by an activist court ignoring due process.
ETA: By way of clarification, Miller has been used to justify federal bans against specific weapons by suggesting that said weapon is not useful or important to a well-regulated militia. The weapon in question was a sawed-off shotgun. It did not address the issue of automatic weapons, because the NFA did not outright ban them. It also did not address the issue of banning specific types of modern weapons, only the sawed off shotgun. My opinion is that the precedent set by Miller has been greatly abused and misused since.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What do -you- think is clear from the text?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That the federal government cannot tell a state's citizens that they can't own guns, because that state might need to mobilize its citizens as part of a militia.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But the state can tell them that?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Certainly that was the Founders' intent.
Are you saying you think that rules layed out in the Bill of Rights don't effect the state's laws, only federal laws? Because if so, I disagree...a lot.
quote: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.
Not:
quote: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 by the federal government.
States can't infringe on constitutional rights just cause.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My argument is that Miller's finding was not particularly constitutional because the supreme court effectively ignored due process by ruling in absentia. As a result, it's precedent should be considered tainted.
That is not, I should point out, what you actually said. It's also a bit of a non sequitur, since it doesn't actually challenge any of the logic in the Miller ruling -- whereas my objections to Heller are based on what appears to be an obvious misreading of law. (Note, by the way, that I'm fine with challenging the Miller logic; it's strained in many places.)
quote:Realistically, it's a response to your claim that Heller and McDonald were just acts of activist courts ignoring precedent, when said precedent was actually set by an activist court ignoring due process.
Bah. The "precedent" I'm talking about was "set" by the Constitution, not by Miller. That Miller just happened to be the first case that came before the court on the topic is largely irrelevant.
----------
quote:States can't infringe on constitutional rights just cause.
Specifically, states can't "infringe" on constitutional rights because of bad readings of the Fourteenth Amendment. The idea that the rights granted by the Constitution are somehow innate rights which trump all law, anywhere, is not only very modern but incoherent and nonsensical.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: That is not, I should point out, what you actually said. It's also a bit of a non sequitur, since it doesn't actually challenge any of the logic in the Miller ruling -- whereas my objections to Heller are based on what appears to be an obvious misreading of law. (Note, by the way, that I'm fine with challenging the Miller logic; it's strained in many places.)
I can now see where you may have misunderstood me. Basically, my opinion is that because there was no defense involved in Miller to present evidence against the NFA, in potential violation of due process, the results of the case are therefore suspect. This kind of logic would follow the idea that the findings are the fruit of the poisonous tree. If the mechanics of the trial violated constitutional principles, the results of the trial also do so.
quote: The "precedent" I'm talking about was "set" by the Constitution, not by Miller
Because I'm likely misunderstanding what you are referring to, could you please elaborate one what specific precedent you're talking about?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Basically, my opinion is that because there was no defense involved in Miller to present evidence against the NFA, in potential violation of due process, the results of the case are therefore suspect.
Before we continue, I'm curious why you think the Supreme Court has to observe what we're calling "due process," here.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So my plan is despised by both sides. Sounds like it would be the logical solution then, but never be accepted.
The argument I am making is not to eliminate all guns, just those who have the ability to cause the most damage while doing the least amount of good.
The response that, "Hey, most damage is caused by handguns" is not the point. Handguns do the most good--in stopping crimes. While they may do the most bad over-all--suicides, accidents, and criminal behavior, one assault weapon with a large clip can do the damage of a dozen hand guns.
I have received emails, passed on from questionable sources, saying that they prefer hunting with an assault weapon. These have come from inexperienced children and an old man who said, "My sight isn't what it once was, so I need a 30 round clip to bring down a deer."
My first thought was--NEVER GO HUNTING WITH THIS PERSON. Every bullet that does not go into the target must go somewhere. I'd rather not it be me.
But the more I thought about this, the more I realized this was the key to getting rid of Assault Weapons. Publicize the truth that has been known for years.....
The bigger the gun, the smaller the man.
Assault weapons are the Viagra of guns.
High Capacity Clips are the cure for Projectile Dysfunction.
Automatic Weapons for those who suffer premature escalation--of violence.
Spray and Pray is not an approved hunting technique. (Spray your bullets and pray you hit something good, not something bad)
If we can brand these most dangerous of weapons as the last refuge of the gun newbie, the wimp, and the bad marksman, nobody will want them.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So my plan is despised by both sides. Sounds like it would be the logical solution then, but never be accepted.
That doesn't necessarily follow, Dan. A plan that declared something like "Everyone in America who wants to own a gun has to wear a headdress made of cupcakes" would be despised by both sides, too.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Specifically, states can't "infringe" on constitutional rights because of bad readings of the Fourteenth Amendment. The idea that the rights granted by the Constitution are somehow innate rights which trump all law, anywhere, is not only very modern but incoherent and nonsensical.
Bad readings?
quote: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
If the constitution isn't the foundation which all law is based, the basic rules for our country, then what the hell is it?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: ...one assault weapon with a large clip can do the damage of a dozen hand guns.
I'm afraid you have no idea what you are talking about.
The average mag for a semi-automatic pistol is 15...so, two handguns, say, one in each hand, can put as many rounds downrange as an "assault weapon" (which has been clarified over and over again that this is a political term and has nothing to do with any real gun).
And trying to shame people into not getting weapons which stand a chance against an armored assailant is not the answer.
*Edited because it sounded snottier then intended.
quote:Basically, my opinion is that because there was no defense involved in Miller to present evidence against the NFA, in potential violation of due process, the results of the case are therefore suspect.
Before we continue, I'm curious why you think the Supreme Court has to observe what we're calling "due process," here.
Because every other court in the nation must follow due process laws. Specifically, the right of a defendant to be present at trial. As far as I know, there is no precedent that suggests death is an acceptable waiver of that right. Criminal cases end when a defendant dies, in no small part because they can no longer be present at their trial. Why, then, did the supreme court continue to hear a case where no defendant remained? The proper course of action would have been to dismiss the charges and vacate the lower ruling.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Can you explain why you believe the Supreme Court needs to follow all the rules followed by every other court in the nation, Boris?
quote:If the constitution isn't the foundation which all law is based, the basic rules for our country, then what the hell is it?
Specifically, the federal constitution is the foundation of all federal law.
Tom...That question might just cause an aneurism for me in the future...Thank you for that. But I'd have to answer, because the Supreme Court is still beholden to the constitution, its amendments, and all precedent upheld by prior cases. Its decisions can rest on shaky interpretations and misreadings at times, but if the supreme court is not beholden to the rules that it *sets* (behavior in courts across the country has been set as a result of decisions handed down by the supreme court, after all), why should any court follow those rules? If the Supreme Court views itself as free to act beyond the scope it sets for lower courts, I would call that an extreme abuse of power and position, wouldn't you?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thank you for that. But I'd have to answer, because the Supreme Court is still beholden to the constitution, its amendments, and all precedent upheld by prior cases.
I would argue that the Supreme Court is beholden to the Constitution, and -- amusingly -- specifically to its own interpretation of the Constitution, barring the impeachment of its members. I would say that it is not technically beholden to precedent, although its members may choose to acknowledge precedents.
quote:if the supreme court is not beholden to the rules that it *sets*..., why should any court follow those rules?
Because the Supreme Court says so.
quote:if the supreme court is not beholden to the rules that it *sets* (behavior in courts across the country has been set as a result of decisions handed down by the supreme court, after all), why should any court follow those rules?
No. You don't even need to have passed the Bar to sit on the Supreme Court (I keep expecting Bill Clinton to get appointed to the Court, just to give a huge middle finger to everyone who cheered when he was disbarred); the rules of lower courts don't have to apply to the Supreme Court at all, except insofar as they voluntarily allow themselves to be bound by them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So basically the supreme court, as it stands, is broken and constantly abuses its power. I agree. That said, if the Supreme Court is beholden to the constitution only, then choosing to continue viewing Miller actually defied the sixth amendment, which is what grants the right to be present at trial. But since you asked so many questions of me in order to dodge my question...what exact precedent did Miller affirm that was so obvious in the constitution?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the constitution isn't the foundation which all law is based, the basic rules for our country, then what the hell is it?
Specifically, the federal constitution is the foundation of all federal law.
quote:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
I truly don't understand how you can think what you think Tom.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure you don't. Here's a fun one for you, though: why do you think states have constitutions?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So basically the supreme court, as it stands, is broken and constantly abuses its power.
I didn't actually say that. I said that it wasn't bound by the traditions and expectations of lower courts.
quote:That said, if the Supreme Court is beholden to the constitution only, then choosing to continue viewing Miller actually defied the sixth amendment, which is what grants the right to be present at trial.
Note that I observed that the Court is beholden to its interpretation of the constitution. If the Court believes -- for whatever reason -- that it doesn't violate the constitution to convene an appeal in the absence of the defendant, what other court gets to say it's wrong?
quote:what exact precedent did Miller affirm that was so obvious in the constitution?
It's amazing how it absolutely doesn't matter, because Miller isn't really all that important of a case. That said, Miller was the first time the court was called upon to try to explain the purpose of the Second Amendment, and they came down pretty firmly on the side of "in order to make a civilian militia possible."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm sure you don't. Here's a fun one for you, though: why do you think states have constitutions?
Wow, what a horrible response.
I'll make it more plain for you. The US Constitution's Sixth Article (that I quoted and you utterly ignored) makes it clear, abundantly, fully and entirely clear that the states must adhere to the Constitution, that every single state official swears to uphold the US Constitution.
Your passive aggressively waving off my lack of understanding as some kind of personal lacking without any kind of explanation is utter crap.
So, instead of endlessly asking questions why don't you try and answer one for once.
How can you possibly feel that states do not need to follow the US Constitution? And site sources please.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The US Constitution's Sixth Article (that I quoted and you utterly ignored) makes it clear, abundantly, fully and entirely clear that the states must adhere to the Constitution...
Where it is speaking to the behavior of the states, yes. What makes you believe that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the behavior of the states?
I wasn't just insulting you, you know. I'm sure you do realize that states have their own constitutions -- even though they already have the U.S. Constitution, which you have asserted is the sole and foundational law of the land. Still, presumably they find these constitutions useful, despite the fact that many of them just go on to reiterate -- sometimes with subtly different language -- rights very similar to the rights enumerated in the federal constitution.
I would suggest to you that you try to imagine why this might be so. I would also suggest that you might want to try Googling both Barron v. Baltimore and Gitlow v. New York. In the context of Barron, the recent ruling in McDonald v. Chicago is egregiously flawed; it incorporates against the states an amendment that was specifically written to permit the states to maintain a means of defending themselves against the federal government.
Anyone who claims to be a fan of a weak federal government should be disgusted by the way McDonald was ruled. And further disgusted by the hypocrisy in incorporating the Second Amendment before incorporating the right to a jury trial -- which, let's face it, has been done solely to protect corporate interests.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Answering the question "Must states follow the US Constitution?" with the question "Why do states have their own Constitutions?" Is like answering the question "Do cities have to follow state laws?" with "Why do cities have their own laws?".
It is not applicable, it is not an answer.
quote:What makes you believe that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the behavior of the states?
The Amendments, the Bill of Rights, are part of the US Constitution, which the sixth clause that I've quoted clearly states is the supreme law, superseding all state laws.
I wonder if you are messing with me here. I mean, it's like you are trying to argue that an apple isn't a fruit.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Answering the question "Must states follow the US Constitution?" with the question "Why do states have their own Constitutions?" Is like answering the question "Do cities have to follow state laws?" with "Why do cities have their own laws?".
I would submit that this is precisely wrong. And I mean precisely, in that cities are to states exactly what states are not to our particular country.
quote:I wonder if you are messing with me here.
*sigh* I know. And I know you find it insulting, but the fact of the matter is that you are just fundamentally misunderstanding, here, and I am failing to reach you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm falling a little behind in this thread, but I'll try to answer a couple bits I've seen pop up:
quote:From Stone Wolf: So, you are saying that if you were not a militia member, you couldn't own a gun, right? Because I don't believe that is even remotely true. Perhaps I am not understanding you...but if I am, do you have any evidence to this claim?
No that's not quite what I'm saying. Guns weren't illegal either at the federal or state level when the amendment was passed, nor for many years afterward, so there's no reason at all why you couldn't own a gun. I'm not sure how you jump from "you don't have a constitutional right" to "you cannot own a gun." There still has to be a law against it, and there wasn't.
As for Boris' drumbeat about the Supreme Court, I may have to backpeddle a bit on my answer. You're right that the Court affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual federal right, though not necessarily restrictive of state governments, and a contingent, limited one, subject to due regulation. That's where the modern interpretation is new. I'll have to do some more reading of case law and some of the better academic articles that have cropped up in the last two years to give you a better feel for my position, but suffice to say I grant that it's an individual right, but I don't grant that just because something is an individual right, that means it's universal and without limitation. Clearly that has not been the case historically.
Stone Wolf -
How familiar are you with the history of the 14th amendment? When the bill of rights was passed, it was clearly understood to limit only federal and not state powers. It is, some believe, why the 14th amendment was passed, to enforce bill of rights laws on state governments, but the 14th amendment was never actually treated that way for a 100 years (depending on which amendment you're referring to, I guess, some were incorporated at different times). My knowledge of this comes in mostly in terms of black history, but I know that until the 1960s, blacks weren't protected, by and large, by the bill of rights from state governments until after Brown because of Plessy. It took decades for activists to push a definition of the 14th amendment that allowed for SCOTUS to enforce the bill of rights on state governments. Before that, there was a virtual dual-citizenship that gave a lot of people two sets of rights, and for all intents and purposes, it was the rights derived from states that really mattered since federal power was relatively weak.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That cities are not to states what states are to this country I can see. Although the point I was trying to make is still valid.
Imagine Oklahoma decided to make a law that said that women must stay silent in public. This is unconstitutional in at least two ways.
The Oklahoman women are also American women, and their right to be treated the same as others and to free speech is protected by the US Constitution. The law would be removed...for being unconstitutional.
The states must follow the US Constitution. Period. Where is the problem in communication breaking down here?
You are either, not communicating well, or just plain wrong.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The states must follow the US Constitution. Period.
*sigh* If you won't Google the specific cases I mentioned, please Google something like "incorporation Bill of Rights" and look at the timeframe we're talking about. I mean, it is within living memory that the Bill of Rights might be said to be binding on the states. And even now, not all of it is.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone--I'm afraid I do know what I'm talking about, though I admit I exaggerate. While two guns with 7 round clips can do as much damage as a semi-automatic pistol. However I was referring to Assault Weapons--rifles with extended magazines--30, 50, 100 rounds that are more powerful--able to go through walls, etc.
As for as shaming people into changing behavior, it has worked in the past, to lower the number of people who are racists, who risk drunk driving, cigarette smoking, even abortion. If you make those behaviors unpopular, tarnish their image, you can change behavior.
Your final claim is that such weapons-- are the only weapons you can use against an armored assailant. There are very few attacks made by armored assailants. Body armor is conspicuous, costly, and rarely used in home invasions. It is 99 more likely any armored assailant you would face would be the police. Those are the people I would like to protect.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
You may find this link helpful. It gives a timeline of the SCOTUS cases that incorporated Bill of Rights protections with the 14th amendment, making them applicable to states. For the first 100 years of the nation, this wasn't the case. And for another 100 years, it still wasn't the case for some individual amendments. Even now, some aspects of the BoR are not incorporated.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Tom, it's as easy as linking to Incorporation of the Bill of Rights instead of constantly quipping with cryptic counter questions. Say that ten times fast.
Darth. This...
quote:While two guns with 7 round clips can do as much damage as a semi-automatic pistol.
...isn't even a sentence, let alone a coherent thought.
Also this is a clip. You were trying to refer to a magazine maybe? Of course that doesn't make sense either, as all semi-automatics use magazines.
Cop issues Beretta/Glock 9mm (most common handguns around) have a capacity of 17 +1. A standard semi automatic rifle mag holds 30. So, two pistols = 36 rounds, or MORE then common rifle mags do.
And while you can get 100 round drums, I had to look up to see if 50 rounders were even available...they are new, and very uncommon. Still, 99.9% of the time you are either dealing with 10 rounds or 30, depending on which state you are in.
As to wall penetration, all guns go through drywall like nothing...here is a chart of an interesting experiment:
quote:Ammunition Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Fiocchi 40-grain VMax(.223) penetrated fragments, some penetration few speckles, no penetration Federal 230-grain .45 ACP FMJ penetrated penetrated penetrated Speer 115-grain 9mm Gold Dot JHP penetrated penetrated missed (user error) Magtech 90-grain .380 FMJ penetrated penetrated penetrated first wall Wolf 7.62x39mm FMJ penetrated penetrated penetrated (keyholes) Winchester Ranger 55-grain Softpoint (.223) penetrated fragments, some penetration speckles, one fragment penetrated first wall Hornady TAP 55-grain (.223) penetrated penetrated penetrated Hornady 60-grain TAP(.223) penetrated penetrated, two pieces fragments, some penetration Winchester Ranger 64-grain Power-Point (.223) penetrated fragments, no total penetration no hits Winchester 12-Gauge 00 Buckshot penetrated penetrated penetrated
The most common "assault weapon" is the AR15, .223 caliber. As you can see, it had less penetrations then the pistol rounds and shotgun. The .223 (5.56 NATO) fires a .22 bullet (the actual projectile, not the whole round), just A LOT faster then the .22lr. But it is the same projectile, which is very small and light and not very good at punching through anything. What it does do well is tumble in soft tissue, making it effective against human targets, it also has low recoil, which is good for accurate burst fire.
If people are carrying these to hunt because they can't hit the side of a barn, then those people need to stop it, seriously, that's horrible.
But that isn't the point of this gun. This gun makes it possible to stand off multiple attackers, it specializes in putting multiple rounds into a single target at close range, effectively disabling them quickly, and is decent at penetrating soft body armor. Police did not carry such weapons prior to the North Hollywood shoot out. They are now quite common. If armored shooters are so very rare, and the only ones around are other cops, why do so many cops carry them? Because the North Hollywood shoot out taught both sides something: Armor makes pistols all but useless. Who taught the cops this...criminals. So, I'll keep my AR15 around, and you can feel free to try and shame me, but I doubt it will work.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW thanks for the lessons in weaponry. I do apologize for my grammatical errors due to late night posting. The thought was coherent, since you understood it.
The point remains the same--that more damage can be done by Assault Weapons than by handguns.
Your arguments against that point are persuasive, there are some very dangerous hand guns out there. However, your argument that you need an assault rifle to defend yourself against armored assailants is a bit weak.
Yes, the North Hollywood shoot out showed that hand guns were not the right tool to stop armored criminals. It took trained police officers with automatic weapons to put them down.
However, that was a bank robbery. The return on investment for a gang to buy body armor to rob a bank is great. The return on investment for a gang to buy body armor to rob a house, or a great number of houses, is not strong. The ROI for body armor to mug people in an ally is so negative as to be ridiculous. In other words, no bad guy you are ever likely to come up against is going to have body armor.
The Cops used their assault weapons to stop the bad guys, but the cops have gone through training, testing, and certification. Any attempt to require training, testing, or certification to acquire an assault weapon, or any weapon, is shot down by the NRA and other pro-gun groups. They fear that the ability to license is the ability to deny. So while the cops know that every bullet that misses a bad guy goes somewhere, so they make sure that they know exactly where those bullets go. The untrained, unlicensed, etc are more likely to rely on "Spray and Pray".
You may have the skills, training, and ability to handle an AR15. There are others who don't. Even you said that someone hunting with an assault weapons because they need 30 shots to hit a target should stop hunting. How do we get them to stop?
Who do you plan on having to face that has Armor?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Can you explain why you believe the Supreme Court needs to follow all the rules followed by every other court in the nation, Boris?
quote:If the constitution isn't the foundation which all law is based, the basic rules for our country, then what the hell is it?
Specifically, the federal constitution is the foundation of all federal law.
Tom...That question might just cause an aneurism for me in the future...Thank you for that. But I'd have to answer, because the Supreme Court is still beholden to the constitution, its amendments, and all precedent upheld by prior cases.
Right on all but the last count. The supreme court is beholden only to precedent set by itself, making this proviso functionally meaningless: as each case the SCOTUS hears effectively *sets* precedent in an either narrow or broad sense, and the court *chooses* it's own cases. Meaning it is never in danger of directly reversing itself- as it can choose both what cases to hear, and whether or not to deliver a broad decision. And in the cases where it has reversed itself, there was no recourse to the party which had precedent overturned.
Most people are not aware of the profoundly powerful position the court occupies. They are for practical purposes responsible to no one, ever for anything.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Guns weren't illegal either at the federal or state level when the amendment was passed, nor for many years afterward, so there's no reason at all why you couldn't own a gun. I'm not sure how you jump from "you don't have a constitutional right" to "you cannot own a gun." There still has to be a law against it, and there wasn't.
Fair point.
quote: When the bill of rights was passed, it was clearly understood to limit only federal and not state powers. It is, some believe, why the 14th amendment was passed, to enforce bill of rights laws on state governments, but the 14th amendment was never actually treated that way for a 100 years (depending on which amendment you're referring to, I guess, some were incorporated at different times).
Yea, this was new info to me...not sure if I wasn't paying attention in Civics, or had a crappy teacher...
Apologies to Tom for being so stiff necked.
What did you think about the argument I quoted about the "right to bear arms" being individual even before it was inherited by the US?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: However, your argument that you need an assault rifle to defend yourself against armored assailants is a bit weak.
...
Who do you plan on having to face that has Armor?
Part of the reason I keep guns is not simply to defend against someone coming into my home, it is because the system of civility which offers us so much protection is fragile and can and has temporarily and will eventually permanently fail.
A hand gun is only useable out to 100 yards at best. A rifle can reach out, for hunting, for defending a position, it has range.
If our civilization falls apart, I want to be ready so that me and mine survive.
Semi-automatic rifles are not tools of evil that need to be squashed. The tragedy at Sandyhook and those like it are such huge outliers, they do not represent a significant reason to drastically change our laws, forcing the surrender of legally owned rifles by law abiding citizens. Other changes, such as mandatory safe storage, will do more good in more areas and not be as invasive.
And when you consider that an average handgun is nearly as "dangerous" to groups of people, you remove a lot of the reason to even consider banning them.
And please. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It is a political distinction which was coined to cause an emotional reaction and does not have any real world applicability. An assault rifle is a military firearm with burst fire capability, a box mag and a smaller cartridge then a full rifle round. The difference between an "assault weapon" and a "featureless rifle" is some ergonomics and a mount for a knife for God's sake. I seriously doubt that we are facing an epidemic of bayonetings in this country. When you use the phrase "assault weapon" it says two things: you don't know what you are talking about, and you have been listening to the wrong people.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
If our civilization falls apart, I want to be ready so that me and mine survive.
Things like this scare me a lot. Not the idea of the fall of civilization but the idea that people seriously think it's going to come down to needing that sort of weaponry like some post apocalyptic scenario out of the movies.
I have a crazy distant cousin I stay facebook friends with so I can pretend I don't live in a internet bubble. One of his friends posts that he has a gun to fend off the muslim invasion. The man lives in Florida, suburbia, I assume. Being on my third muslim roommate I would really like to know what the purpose of this invasion is. Why Florida, would it be house to house? Mouse to mouse? What are the strategic targets? Would they sail over in a boat from Cuba and then work their way upwards state by state until they reach New York or DC? Would they take his TV?
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
If our civilization falls apart, I want to be ready so that me and mine survive.
Things like this scare me a lot. Not the idea of the fall of civilization but the idea that people seriously think it's going to come down to needing that sort of weaponry like some post apocalyptic scenario out of the movies.
I have a crazy distant cousin I stay facebook friends with so I can pretend I don't live in a internet bubble. One of his friends posts that he has a gun to fend off the muslim invasion. The man lives in Florida, suburbia, I assume. Being on my third muslim roommate I would really like to know what the purpose of this invasion is. Why Florida, would it be house to house? Mouse to mouse? What are the strategic targets? Would they sail over in a boat from Cuba and then work their way upwards state by state until they reach New York or DC? Would they take his TV?
Well according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists we are 5 minutes away from midnight on the doomsday clock. Down from 17 in 1991.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: (a) No public servant as defined in W.S. 6-5-101, or dealer selling any firearm in this state shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.
(b) Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a misdemeanor felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.
(c) The attorney general may defend a citizen of Wyoming who is prosecuted by the United States government for violation of a federal law relating to the manufacture, sale, transfer or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition owned or manufactured and retained exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.
(d) Any federal law, rule, regulation or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013 shall be unenforceable within the borders of Wyoming if the law, rule, regulation or order attempts to:
(i) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or
(ii) Require any firearm, magazine or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.
posted
It's a sign that President Obama's call for Congress to renew a ban on *any* firearms is doomed to failure. The popular support is just not there, and even if it were, marginally, Congress is owned lock, stock, and smoking barrel by the gun lobby.
It seems obvious to me that the President is making a political statement to please certain vocal people. Since Congress has to take the action (pass the legislation), therein lies the beauty of his politicking. Congress won't do anything, and Obama won't have to sign any legislation, and this debate can just go away. Or segue into the next manufactured crisis...another 'fiscal cliff'.
I don't see his executive orders as much of an issue, honestly. I'd be surprised if my rabid gun-toting family and friends (the intelligent ones) would see any issues with them.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Practically it means nothing. States can't pass laws that say they refuse to adhere to laws passed by the federal government so long as they are upheld as constitutional. This IS a case where the Supremacy Clause makes passing such a law a moot point. Besides, it's Wyoming...
I think Tstorm is wrong about the President's call being DOA, though he's right about the NRA being so powerful. Part of the problem of gerrymandering and polarization in Congress is that the NRA can't really pick off many more Democrats because everyone in Congress has been shoehorned into virtually impenetrable districts. There IS public support for many new (somewhat watered down) gun control initiatives like increased background checks and the like, but I have no idea if the assault weapons ban will pass again. GOP leaders were somewhat muted in their response today.
As for his executive orders, he issued 23. 22 of them were virtually useless. But he issued an order directing the CDC's crime prevention unit to begin studying gun violence. Part of the reason why there are so few really good academic studies on the effects of guns on society is that the NRA shut down government support for them years ago. The CDC was banned from studying gun violence, presumably for fear that the evidence they would collect would provide a counternarrative for the gun control lobby, and the GOP has been enforcing it in Congress ever since.
This one is a slow boil, but if the CDC starts really gathering good data on gun violence, we can start having a real debate on this issue with something more than arguing what the Framers wanted and what feels right, and start using some real evidence and facts. It's something that will fly mostly under the radar, except I'm sure the NRA noticed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What did you think about the argument I quoted about the "right to bear arms" being individual even before it was inherited by the US?
Tricky subject. You're talking colonial times when the people were still, by and large, English, and derived their rights from a combination of English common law and the 1689 Declaration of Rights. I think it's largely an academic discussion. While a large amount of the US Code and other US law was initially drafted from US law, and US common law was often derived directly from British common law, it was still a new nation, and you can't guarantee every right or restriction from Britain here. And clearly that was a precedent we were okay with doing away with, otherwise slavery and the slave trade, which we specifically protected in our constitution but was illegal in Britain by this time, would have been covered by that same precedent of adhering to British laws and rights.
It's all too much like picking and choosing the things you like and don't like, which is exactly what we did when the nation was founded, but that makes it hard to look to Britain and say "they have that right so we have that right," because you can't say that about everything. So I think that makes it difficult to argue that rights based on English law supersede those written into US law after the Constitution was ratified.
I would hasten to add, by the way, even if someone were to agree that it was an individual right, the right protected the people from fiat laws set by the King to take away guns. The right did NOT protect them from regulation and laws created by parliament. It was parliament that passed laws on the colonists limiting their importation of weapons, seizing arsenals and other overt acts to take away guns, and while the colonists felt this was a violation, many in England felt it was perfectly in keeping with the law because Parliament had that power.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: (a) No public servant as defined in W.S. 6-5-101, or dealer selling any firearm in this state shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.
(b) Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a misdemeanor felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.
(c) The attorney general may defend a citizen of Wyoming who is prosecuted by the United States government for violation of a federal law relating to the manufacture, sale, transfer or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition owned or manufactured and retained exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.
(d) Any federal law, rule, regulation or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013 shall be unenforceable within the borders of Wyoming if the law, rule, regulation or order attempts to:
(i) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or
(ii) Require any firearm, magazine or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.
It doesn't have an ice-cube's chance in hell of standing up in federal court. It is blatantly illegal, and would be thrown out so fast you would feel the breeze.
Not to mention it would get the state's attorney charged with obstruction of justice- meaning that he would *never* charge anyone under this statute. So whether it passes or not, it will never be a law in effect.
And, I should add, it would never make its way to the supreme court either, because there is absolutely no case in its favor. It is a law suborning obstruction of justice- not a legitimate challenge to federal law on constitutional grounds. And it's a stunt.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify where I'm coming from, I'm an Australian who has a gun collection, put himself through University by selling kangaroo skins that he hunted, and believes that anyone is entitled to defend himself and his family. That said I (as do many non US citizens) find the whole concept of constitutionally allowed gun armed rebellion, if you don't agree with your democratically elected government, to be absurd and illogical. Regarding personal safety my guns are well locked away & home safety is secured by much more effective means. Only losers need semi or full automatic firearms to feel safe, and should understand that competent assailants will quickly turn such against them.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Daryl: Only losers need semi or full automatic firearms to feel safe...
So, by your estimation, nearly every single law enforcement officer and member of any military world wide is a "loser". Way to troll!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Stone--I'm afraid I do know what I'm talking about, though I admit I exaggerate. While two guns with 7 round clips can do as much damage as a semi-automatic pistol. However I was referring to Assault Weapons--rifles with extended magazines--30, 50, 100 rounds that are more powerful--able to go through walls, etc.
Darth, you haven't provided much evidence that you know anything at all about firearms, beyond maybe what you've learned from TV and Movies. You are overestimating both the lethality and effectiveness of "Assault Weapons" vs. a non "Assault Weapon"
First: Rifles with extended magazines don't actually make a significant difference in lethality in semi-automatic weapons. A practiced marksman can change a rifle cartridge in about a second, so when you are talking about 10 rounds vs 30 rounds, an extended magazine saves maybe 3 seconds when firing 30 rounds. In most mass shooting events, the assailants usually have more than 20 minutes before meeting any resistance at all. Extended magazines make no difference in these, but they do make a difference for people who are hunting, target shooting, or have to carry firearms when traveling in the wild, because it means they have to carry fewer magazines with them and have to manipulate their firearms less.
In addition, a practiced marksman can fire a non-semi automatic firearm with incredible speed.. Note, from that video, that even a 6 shot revolver, with no magazine, can be reloaded in less than 2 seconds by someone who practices. Shotguns can be fired just as fast. The trick, though, is accuracy. You can only fire so fast and remain accurate. Cowboy Shooting involves being both fast and accurate with non-semi automatic weaponry (revolvers, lever action rifles, pump-action shotguns). Those guys can get off 30 accurate shots in only slightly more time than the average person can with a semi-automatic weapon using an extended magazine.
Second: You can only fire the weapon as often as you pull the trigger, and the human finger is capable of pulling the trigger only a certain number of times in a minute. This is why fully automatic weaponry has developed so much, to overcome the human body's limitations. Firearms with fully automatic and even burst fire (three or more shots per trigger pull) capabilities are already illegal for civilians to purchase if they were made after the mid 80s or so. It's legal to own a fully automatic weapon made prior to the late 70s, as long as the purchaser pays a tax and registers it and the sale with the ATF. Only 1 legally obtained fully automatic weapon has been used in any crime in the past 75 years. Illegally obtained or modified fully automatic weapons are used more often. It's stupid to think any "Assault Weapons" ban will change that.
Third: A weapons ability to "Fire through walls", as you put it, is determined primarily by two factors, and both are matters of ammunition type and have nothing to do with how the weapon looks or operates. Ammunition Caliber and Type do more to determine lethality than anything the last Assault Weapons Ban and what the President currently wants defines as "lethality improvements." A .22 caliber bullet won't even go through a human skull unless it's fired from less than a few feet away. A .50 Caliber round can go through an engine block.
In addition, the type of projectile has an impact. A hollow point round typically won't pierce body armor, but will cause severe damage to a "soft" target like flesh because the hollowing of the bullet's tip causes the bullet to deform and spread on impact. A full metal jacket round can pierce a flak jacket (not modern body armor, for the most part), but does very little damage to flesh because the hard metal jacket prevents the bullet from deforming. This results in greater energy focused at the tip of the bullet, allowing the bullet to penetrate further. Since the jacket also holds the bullet together, this results in significantly less damage to flesh. Also, an FMJ round is likely to pass through a soft target while a Hollow Point is designed specifically to prevent complete penetration from happening.
Two bullets with the same caliber, one hollow point and one FMJ, will result in significantly different survivability prospects for a victim. There are also rounds designed to pierce any kind of personal body armor and even some types of vehicular armor, rounds that explode shortly after impact, rounds that are designed to do no damage to flesh, and incendiary rounds that catch fire when the bullet deforms. You also have tracer rounds which are basically pure phosphorous and are used to allow a shooter to know where their bullets are going. Civilians can usually only obtain FMJ rounds and Hollow points. Most specialty ammunition requires special permits from the ATF, and some types are outright banned in various states.
What past laws refer to as "Assault Weapons" range from the smallest caliber (.22, usually) up to .45 caliber and 9mm ammunition. As such, some "Assault Weapons" will do little more damage than a BB gun while others can stop a bear in its tracks. .50 Caliber, one of the largest bullets you can obtain for weapon that isn't crew served, is usually only available in weapons that wouldn't meet the "Assault Weapon" definition. There are few, if any, .50 caliber ammunition types that *won't* go through a wall of just about any type (except perhaps steel bunker walls). Just a few .50 Caliber weapons available on the market: Smith and Wesson .500 Special Armalite AR-50 Desert Eagle XIX .50AE The "Assault Weapons" ban wouldn't apply to any of these weapons, but they are among the most powerful weapons available.
On the other hand, a .22 Archangel is, in reality, no more lethal than a 10/22 Ruger. They are actually the *exact same weapon*. They fire the same type of ammunition, and the ammunition they fire has the exact same amount of powder and lead. A shot from a 10/22 will do the exact same thing as a .22 Archangel. The Archangel just has a number of cosmetic modifications that make it look more imposing and operate slightly different. A pistol grip is an Ergonomic improvement that makes it so the firearm is less likely to injure the person shooting the rifle. The rail on top allows to to mount scopes in a different way. A mussel break at the end of the barrel is the most likely to increase a weapons lethality, but in reality the only thing that does is reduce the rifle's recoil slightly. It allows you to re-acquire a target faster, but the time required to aim is measured in fractions of a second. The fact that the weapon looks significantly more imposing is a matter of aesthetics. It looks really mean and deadly, but it's still a .22 caliber rifle that is barely capable of killing small rodents.
Finally: "Assault Weapons" are used in fewer homicides than blunt objects, according to the FBI. I know you've dismissed that argument because no one has given you a verifiable source, but here's the statistics direct from the FBI. Note that the vast majority of homicides are committed with handguns. Only 2.5% of all homicides are committed with rifles. I will, of course, note that about 15% of homicides are committed with firearms of indeterminate type, but assuming that even a majority of these undetermined weapons are rifles would be a stretch considering the statistics on known firearms.
Why? The point you made about body armor applies to "Assault Weapons" as well. "Assault Weapons" are extremely conspicuous and difficult to hide. As such, criminals rarely use them. Handguns are easier to conceal and require less effort to use. And as for magazines that hold 50 to 100 rounds...have you *seen* those before? They're freaking huge. There isn't a pocket on earth big enough to hide a 100 round magazine. They also usually cost more than the weapon they hold bullets for. (A 100 round drum for an AR-15 costs 700 bucks, and that's *cheap*).
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Daryl: Only losers need semi or full automatic firearms to feel safe...
So, by your estimation, nearly every single law enforcement officer and member of any military world wide is a "loser". Way to troll!
I translated that statement to mean something close to, "I don't think people need semiautomatic weapons, and people who disagree with me are poopoo-heads."
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I said that it wasn't bound by the traditions and expectations of lower courts.
