That evil ACLU...

[Bill Greenwood]

CAP, I doubt we are going to find much common ground in our discussion. 6 school kids were just shot getting off the bus. I am sure some pro gun guys will say the solution is for each school kid to be armed. Frankly, although I used to hunt as a kid, I just don't find guns that much fun. I recently went target shooting with my son, 22, revolver and auto, 9mm auto, and AR-15, .223. It was fun for awhile, but frankly I rather spend the time flying most any plane, glider on up.
I am glad that I am lucky enough to live in a place where I don't have to worry about carrying a gun, and we don't have crack or meth. And I am glad my mental set is such that I don't have to fear what someone else may say or write.
As for the ACLU restricting speech, despite it being an organization with many Jewish and Black members, they still stood up for the principle involved even when it was for the KKK. They(ACLU) also don't seem afraid of free speech by the other guy.

[CAPFlyer]

6 school kids were just shot getting off the bus. I am sure some pro gun guys will say the solution is for each school kid to be armed.

Again, the issue is not whether there should be an unfettered ability for all to own any weapon they want. The founders believed that it should be up to the citizen and state to self-police these items via state legislation, not the federal. The federal government cannot restrict the owning of firearms, but by the same measure, the Constitution does not prevent reasonable restrictions to be enacted by the state legislatures or via a federal amendment.

The basic problem goes back to the fact that no matter what laws we put in place, most laws only restrict those whom are law abiding anyway. Those who do not wish to follow that law will violate it anyway, again, look at the VT shooting and the extremely high violent crime rate within the District of Columbia. Both areas ban many weapons yet those very banned weapons are the perpetrator of most of their violent crimes, not knives, rifles, or shotguns, but handguns.

I'm also not saying that everyone should be armed just as no one else has. We are saying that we should have the choice of how we defend ourselves since the police have no legal obligation to protect the individual, it is up to the individual to protect themselves.

[Randy Haskin]

nowhere does it say private citizens can own assualt rifles.

What is an "assault rifle", Bill?

[T2 Ernie]

As for the keep and bear arms part, you interpret it one way, other people another, but nowhere does it say private citizens can own assualt rifles. You dismiss the part about the militia. Maybe the founders, by militia, meant to keep arms in an armory like a national guard, I don't know, it is not totally clear, and I have not researched if there are other writings by the founders to shed light on their thinking. To you it it is totally clear because you want it that way.

Despite the National Guard's desire to trace their lineage directly to the militias of the day, there is some disconnect between then & now. The current National Guard is organized, trained, & equipped by the State & Federal Governments. Before the National Guard was organized the way it currently is in 1903, they were indeed called state militias & a 1790 law required registration by all able-bodied men. Prior to the federalization of the NG, militia members maintained & provided their own weapons. These militia members were private citizens whose personal weapons were all they had...

As for assault weapons, I'm with Randy - define them.

The problem with defining them & then deciding some are bad & some are good is precedent. Once you draw the line, it is easier to move it one way or the other. Do I think Joe Anyone needs a fully automatic SAW in his closet? Probably not, but by defining automatic weapons as "bad" or "evil" we have set a precedent whereby certain weapons may be categorized & denied to people. This is exactly the same logic used in free speech - you have to protect the right of the KKK to spout their hatred to guarantee everyone free speech - you can't pick & choose. Neither should you pick & choose which weapons are acceptable; either we can have weapons, or we can't. To guarantee any right, no matter what it is, you have to protect the portions of the right that are on the margins.

Sarah Brady & others decided some weapons were evil & called them "assault" weapons. They were defined by their appearance & vilified & subsequently banned. This did nothing but abridge the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I'm far too tired to banter much more - several hours at 250' in IMC & moderate mixed icing in the NM/CO mountains just wears you out - gotta love terrain following radar!

[Broken-Wrench]

[quote="Broken-Wrench"]How come the ACLU isn't against taking tax money from one class of people to give to another less responsible class or caring for some elses kids.. I don't see that anywhere in the consitiution.. .[/quote]


Ever notice how they glaze right over the tax money issue and go for the guns,,, That's the liberal way to totaly ignore things like that and go for the social projects. Those poeple go nuts with guns probably because they can't aford to pay their taxes anymore.

[muddyboots]

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". Sturmgewehr was coined by Adolf Hitler to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first widely-used assault rifle and served to popularize the concept. The translation “assault rifle” gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the name giver StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have all of the following five characteristics to qualify as an assault rifle:[1][2][3]

Is a carbine sized individual weapon with provision to be fired from a shouldered position.
Barrel length is usually 400 mm to 500 mm (16” to 20”)
Is capable of selective fire.
Fires from a locked breech.
Utilizes an intermediate powered-cartridge.
Ammunition is supplied from a large capacity detachable box magazine.
Most common is a capacity of 30 rounds, sometimes 20 rounds.
The following features are commonly found on assault rifles, but those are not exclusive to assault rifles, as those features are shared with many submachine guns, battle rifles, automatic rifles and machine guns:

Protruding pistol grip.
Folding, retractable or otherwise collapsible shoulder stock.
Bipod
Muzzle device like a muzzle brake or a flash suppressor.

stolen from wikipedia. This is pretty close to Jayne's definition, INHO.

Trust a zoomie not to know what an assault rifle is Randy, I've lost track. Are you guys supporting that everybody has a right to own somethiong akin to the StG'44?


So... Ernie, I would take it you believe that since we should have no limits on what we may own, that I can buy a couple of stinger missiles? I'd like a few of those. And maybe a couple of dragon atm's and darn I would like my own Barrett. I never liked the version we were allowed to play with during Desert Storm, but the newer models seem to fix mst of those problems. Just think, I can put one well aimed round through a cockpit and no one can track me down cause there aren't all the...issues that firing a SAM will dump on me.
Or maybe a couple of M60's. I always thoght I could use a couple of those. Set them up foe enfilaading fire in front of a grade school at 6 am, hidden in the back of a couple of empty vehicles, and make America a new nation.

To claim that all weapons are equal as some have (not necessarily you) is a act of outrageous arrogance and stupidity. Some laws are needed. Now, do all weapons need to be banned? No. But do many high performance kill large numbers of people at once weapons need controlling? Yup.

Last edited by muddyboots on Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[Bill Greenwood]

This topic began about ACLU, CAP says they don't follow the constitution. I wrote that the Constitution is a document open to interpretation and gave 2 examples, one was how the view of freedom of speech has evolved with cell phones, internet etc, and the other example was that the clause about ''militia and "bear arms" is pretty short and can mean different things to different people. Just the word "people" has been the subject of legal action, whether it refers to one person or a collective. I was not interested in a long debate about gun control, it wasn't the point I was trying to make, but CAP and others want to focus on that. As I said in my topic "Shootings", I was not advocating pro or anti gun.
Many people, my son, my nephews, have guns as a hobby, or hunt. I hunted doves as a kid and it was kind of fun, definitely took some skill to hit a moving target. But, I tried other things, football, motorcycles, skiing, airplanes, tennis etc. They all seemed to be more fun to me than guns. My brother was an avid hunter, even though he was a pilot he thought an airplane was just to get to the hunting lease or football game. I have not shot "big game", watched on TV as 2 mighty outdoorsmen used their scope equipped high powered rifle to kill a bear laying still under a tree. Seems to me about as much of a challenge as a parked fighter shooting the hangar door.
I've shot a 30 cal machine gun, fun to try once. But I have also skied in a downhill race on hard snow at speeds up to 70. ( Fast guys were 10mph faster, a Texan skiing is unnatural like a man at a shopping center) and to me it way outranks shooting guns.
You guys can have guns as your hobby, or play chess or exhibit show dogs, or follow wrestling or poker. For me, I have tried it, and it doesn't seem as much fun as any kind of flying, or about 20 other things I'd rather do.
To get back to the original topic, how bad was the ACLU when they went to court on behalf of the NRA?
Finally, Randy I think an assault rifle is to shoot someone in the lower posterior with.

[muddyboots]

I find that the gun control debate is always an easier subject, Bill. The 14th is pretty cut and dried, and when you hammer folks into a corner about the ACLU's committment to applying it to every US citizen (not just hunt and peck as some would like) then they attempt to drag the conversation to easier territory (the 2nd) where they feel safer since the wording is much more easiily obfuscated. Of course, I could be wrong, for I am just a tender young virgin with no one to look out for her. * looks around hopefully for a big bad wolf *

Last edited by muddyboots on Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Bill Greenwood]

BDK, you and my son are two of a kind, young good looking guys, who think I am old and out of touch. He does think I can fly some.
Seriously, at least you wrote that re guns it is YOUR INTERPRETATION. Some Quaker vegetarian PETA member may have a different one. As I tried to point out to CAP there are gray areas of the law that even honest fair minded people can differ.He did not see it that way.
I don't really care that much about guns, I own a couple but I don't have one in my pocket while living in fear that Hillary might send the gestapo to my door.

[Broken-Wrench]

[quote="T2 Ernie"][quote="Bill Greenwood"]
As for the keep and bear arms part, you interpret it one way, other people another, but nowhere does it say private citizens can own assualt rifles. You dismiss the part about the militia. Maybe the founders, by militia, meant to keep arms in an armory like a national guard, I don't know, it is not totally clear, and I have not researched if there are other writings by the founders to shed light on their thinking. To you it it is totally clear because you want it that way.[/quote]
Despite the National Guard's desire to trace their lineage directly to the militias of the day, there is some disconnect between then & now. The current National Guard is organized, trained, & [b]equipped [/b]by the State & Federal Governments. Before the National Guard was organized the way it currently is in 1903, they were indeed called state militias & a 1790 law required registration by all able-bodied men. Prior to the federalization of the NG, militia members maintained & provided their own weapons. These militia members were private citizens whose personal weapons were all they had...

As for assault weapons, I'm with Randy - define them.

The problem with defining them & then deciding some are bad & some are good is precedent. Once you draw the line, it is easier to move it one way or the other. Do I think Joe Anyone needs a fully automatic SAW in his closet? Probably not, but by defining automatic weapons as "bad" or "evil" we have set a precedent whereby certain weapons may be categorized & denied to people. This is exactly the same logic used in free speech - you have to protect the right of the KKK to spout their hatred to guarantee everyone free speech - you can't pick & choose. Neither should you pick & choose which weapons are acceptable; either we can have weapons, or we can't. To guarantee any right, no matter what it is, you have to protect the portions of the right that are on the margins.

Sarah Brady & others decided some weapons were evil & called them "assault" weapons. They were defined by their appearance & vilified & subsequently banned. This did nothing but abridge the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I'm far too tired to banter much more - several hours at 250' in IMC & moderate mixed icing in the NM/CO mountains just wears you out - gotta love terrain following radar![/quote]

[T2 Ernie]

[So... Ernie, I would take it you believe that since we should have no limits on what we may own, that I can buy a couple of stinger missiles? I'd like a few of those. And maybe a couple of dragon atm's and darn I would like my own Barrett. I never liked the version we were allowed to play with during Desert Storm, but the newer models seem to fix mst of those problems. Just think, I can put one well aimed round through a cockpit and no one can track me down cause there aren't all the...issues that firing a SAM will dump on me.

You can own a Barrett, just like you can own any fully automatic weapon whose sale is not regulated by the export treaties & sales of military hardware laws. You have to fill out more paperwork, obtain a special permit, & pay a special tax, but yes, you can own many things most people think you can't. You can even legally own a silencer.

Yes, some weapons require a higher degree of control, but I will stand fast that if you allow me the luxury of re-defining weapon to mean firearms & not military-specific missiles & rockets, that I should be allowed to own them - with the higher degree of oversight. Why not?

When you answer my "why not" question, be aware that you will have no choice but to categorize & label things good & bad. This is precedent & under our legal system, can be used to criminalize certain things or actions.

For the sake of argument, let's say we all agree that nobody needs an M60 at home. Since nobody needs one, we should outlaw them. (I don't think we should go around outlawing anything just because nobody needs them, but that's not the thrust of this argument) We rationalize this ban based on the fact that this weapon is only useful to kill large numbers of people at once & since our law-abiding citizens don't normally go around killing large numbers of people at once, and it's generally accepted as socially poor behavior, we decide these are "bad" guns.

The line has been drawn.

Now the next time someone gets the bright idea to ban another weapon, they do not need to justify whether or not they should be allowed to ban it, they need only convince people it is a "bad" weapons.

Precedent. We've already banned things because they're bad, so we just need to say "X" is bad, so we can ban it.

The challenge you should be concerned with is the initial ban, no matter how outrageous, because a preceent has been set. They can take away your M60 because it's bad. Next, they can take away your .38 Spcl because it's bad & used by criminals.

It's the "slippery slope" argument that is not always a viable argument, but has merit under the pretext of precedent.

These gun control debates are often emotionally made instead of logic. Banning guns of any type has never prevented a single crime. Guns don't kill people anymore than forks make you fat. I'm fat because I like to eat.

Back to the ACLU - the 2nd amendment argument, & the assault weapons specifically, are pertinent because the ACLU uses exclusionary language to make their cases - I'm back to specific enumeration. Which, on the surface, appears inclusionary, but is in reality exclusionary....

To claim that all weapons are equal as some have (not necessarily you) is a act of outrageous arrogance and stupidity. Some laws are needed. Now, do all weapons need to be banned? No. But do many high performance kill large numbers of people at once weapons need controlling? Yup.

I agree to an extent - only if you define control as a higher level of regulation that does not ban.

FWIW, I was sorely tempted to buy an MP-5 several years ago. It was stupidly expensive & I had the annual "tax" to contend with (I was an FFL at the time), but in the end, my decision was based on two things - #1, I didn't really want to burn that much money on a toy & #2, I didn't like the model!! It was the kurtz like the SEALs use - the one that shoots the tip of your finger off if you hold the handgrip wrong! (self-critiquing though!)

[muddyboots]

I never liked the MP5. I know the SEALs use them to good effect, but when am I gonna go assaulting an enclosed space for god's sake? I tend to buy things I can use for real, and which have a wider variety of uses, like an M16A2. 3 round burst is very useful for a wide variety of things, and aimed shot is great for a wide variety of things. A decent 12 guage is imho as good as an MP5, with the plus that it doesn't jam as readily if it isn't extremely well maintained. Tho for years I had a real yen to own a stainless .357 like they used in blue water missions. Growing up in Louisiana that would have been a handy tool.

I agree that no weapon should be banned. Heavily regulated, yes. But only the most experienced and TRUSTWORTHY should be allowed to own something like a barrett, or an M2, or a Stinger. Just makes sense to make sure the guy you're giving it to doesn't have mental issues, or will sell it or give it away when he needs the cash, or is a mamber of AQ. But again, this all goes back to interpretation.
Is a stinger an "arm?" in that case what about an F15? I'd love to get Randy to teach me how to drop a couple of tons of iron into a 10meter square. Just for those days when I need a liitle more bang for my bucks...NOw if I could only afford the taxes, fuel, training, regulatory fees, and all those new sets of underwear I'd need whlie Randy was teaching me to fly one of the damned things...

[T2 Ernie]

I never liked the MP5. I know the SEALs use them to good effect, but when am I gonna go assaulting an enclosed space for god's sake? I tend to buy things I can use for real, and which have a wider variety of uses, like an M16A2. 3 round burst is very useful for a wide variety of things, and aimed shot is great for a wide variety of things. A decent 12 guage is imho as good as an MP5, with the plus that it doesn't jam as readily if it isn't extremely well maintained. Tho for years I had a real yen to own a stainless .357 like they used in blue water missions. Growing up in Louisiana that would have been a handy tool.

I have to admit, I'm not up on the various models of guns, but having shot a couple variants of the MP5, I like whichever model the SAS uses. I got to do a "field trip" to Hereford when I was on exchange with the RAF SF unit - what a blast - fast roping onto roofs, shot-gunning doors off hinges (which I'd done with FDLE in Miami on an internship years ago), det-cording doors & walls, & the killing house with 9mm sim-munitions in MP-5s - shooting your buddies! Those feckers hurt (got one on the back of my thigh ) Also got to shoot some of their big guns, a belt through their "pinkie" mounted 50-cal, M206, blah, blah, blah....all good fun & each with their own usage. Hard to beat the old 12ga pump for around the house & close-in home defense though.

For my limited exposure to M16, I have to say it feels like a plastic tinker-toy with a tinny spring in the stock. The MP5 feels much better made & despite my nationalistic tendencies, I'd probably pick an MP5 over an M16. Of course, a G3 would be even better!

I agree that no weapon should be banned. Heavily regulated, yes. But only the most experienced and TRUSTWORTHY should be allowed to own something like a barrett, or an M2, or a Stinger. Just makes sense to make sure the guy you're giving it to doesn't have mental issues, or will sell it or give it away when he needs the cash, or is a mamber of AQ. But again, this all goes back to interpretation.

The danger here is that by regulating certain classes of weapons, we've already "partially demonized" them. This could be used to regulate them to the point of banning them. Paranoid? Perhaps. But just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to ban all my guns!

Is a stinger an "arm?" in that case what about an F15? I'd love to get Randy to teach me how to drop a couple of tons of iron into a 10meter square. Just for those days when I need a liitle more bang for my bucks...NOw if I could only afford the taxes, fuel, training, regulatory fees, and all those new sets of underwear I'd need whlie Randy was teaching me to fly one of the damned things...

That'd be cool - I've often thought some RPGs or 2.75" FFR would be nice for the truck - you know, for those idiots driving 40mph in the fast lane.

Maybe I'm wrong about the ACLU & maybe they're simply victims of the law of unintended consequences - while they're out there fighting for my rights & civil liberties, they end up making things worse & it's just not their fault...(sarcasm, in case you mised it)

[muddyboots]

I always wonder why in the movies they show people shooting locks off. Much easier to shoot the hinges. It's hard to hit the lock bar in a masterlock. If you don't you mangle the lock, and have to try again, often reulting in a nasty ricochet. Better a shotgun blast to the top hinge so the weight of the door will pull it down and open. I agree about the M16, but I've used it as a club, and it held up just fine for me. That foam filled butt always worried me... BUt that thick assed reinforced barrel is worth its weight in gold.

Anyway, back to the ACLU...Although you are being sarcastic, I think the arguement does have some veracity. I think they have become the poster child for all of the systems foibles. Having decided that they must take full advantage of the system in order to preserve civil rights, they have opened themselves up to hatefilled, warmongering baby killers to make fun of... I shouldn't of said that last bit should I? Well, I am a baby killer, so I guess I'm allowed just this once.

Seriously, whether you like the ACLU or not, you have to admit they have forced our nation to face some pretty big issues when no one else would do it. That's the way this nations laws, in every single case, have been codified or struck down: by being challenged. So if you want to demonize a group, better start pointing fingers at every single judge who ever sat the bench. Every decision made, every final judgement, affects the way our judiciary and congress view and use law in our country. Each case builds on and is in turn used as a foundation for later cases. It's the way the judicial system is set up. I can hardly fault the ACLU for playing by the rules, just like every other interest group out there...Well, exepct for the NRA. They just line dissenters up against the wall and have Charlton Heston glare at them

[T2 Ernie]

I always wonder why in the movies they show people shooting locks off. Much easier to shoot the hinges. It's hard to hit the lock bar in a masterlock. If you don't you mangle the lock, and have to try again, often reulting in a nasty ricochet. Better a shotgun blast to the top hinge so the weight of the door will pull it down and open. I agree about the M16, but I've used it as a club, and it held up just fine for me. That foam filled butt always worried me... BUt that thick assed reinforced barrel is worth its weight in gold.

The SAS SOP is two in the center (or is that centre since it's British?) of the door at chest & head level, one to each of the hinges & one to the lock - then a guy with a hoolie bar steps up, smashes the pointy end through the centre of the door & rips it off - if done right, it requires little effort on his part. Your shotguns are bungied to your shoulder, so they're just dropped as you bring your MP5 to bear & enter to clear the room. I hate trying to sight through those iron sights wearing a chem mask & body armor though - it's a be-atch.

Anyway, back to the ACLU...Although you are being sarcastic, I think the arguement does have some veracity. I think they have become the poster child for all of the systems foibles. Having decided that they must take full advantage of the system in order to preserve civil rights, they have opened themselves up to hatefilled, warmongering baby killers to make fun of... I shouldn't of said that last bit should I? Well, I am a baby killer, so I guess I'm allowed just this once.

Ever do anything within the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law? Did you question your ethics afterwards? That's the ACLU. You've already mentioned legislating from the bench by questionable judges - that's a very real part of the problem too. ALL special interest groups who attempt change via the judiciary instead of the legislative are part of the problem - including those groups whose agendas I agree with.

Seriously, whether you like the ACLU or not, you have to admit they have forced our nation to face some pretty big issues when no one else would do it. That's the way this nations laws, in every single case, have been codified or struck down: by being challenged. So if you want to demonize a group, better start pointing fingers at every single judge who ever sat the bench. Every decision made, every final judgement, affects the way our judiciary and congress view and use law in our country. Each case builds on and is in turn used as a foundation for later cases. It's the way the judicial system is set up. I can hardly fault the ACLU for playing by the rules, just like every other interest group out there...Well, exepct for the NRA. They just line dissenters up against the wall and have Charlton Heston glare at them

Letter of the law vs spirit of the law. They haven't forced the nation to face anything - they've forced sympathetic judges to hear their arguments & then legislated from the bench. Legal? Yes. Ethical? Questionable, at best.