Gun don't kill people, people kill people

[gsdx]

The NRA lobbies for the three-fifths of Americans who view it favorably.

I said nothing about lobbying. I was talking about 'donations'. There is a huge difference.

Of course the Republicans are going to buddy up to the NRA when they're tossing 10s of millions of dollars into their coffers, which has nothing whatsoever to do with lobbying.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I’m glad there are plenty of good samaritans practicing their second amendment rights stopping mass shootings.

Oh wait...

 

[Kulindahr]

^ The NRA would have nothing to do with restrictions of any kind. They nixed a government attempt to have locks put on guns.

They simply have more power than the government and governments far-too-afraid to put them in their place.

The current NRA leadership isn't oriented toward protecting the Constitution so much as to raising money. The PR firm that's effectively in charge knows that reasoned positions don't motivate people to haul out their check books. The locks issue is a good example of that; under the Article I Section 8 authority over the militia, a good argument can be made that Congress can require all arms not in use to be locked up, which would mean any not being actually carried or stored specifically to be available for defense of home or business, but such a nuanced position wouldn't stir people to send in extra donations -- so it's ignored, as is a lot of what could be done in Congress would exercise that authority over the militia. In fact, most of what Switzerland does would come under that authority, including secure storage and regular training -- but advocating or even explaining that wouldn't bring in the millions.

 

[Kulindahr]

I said nothing about lobbying. I was talking about 'donations'. There is a huge difference.

Of course the Republicans are going to buddy up to the NRA when they're tossing 10s of millions of dollars into their coffers, which has nothing whatsoever to do with lobbying.

You said:

"^ That and stopping political donations by the NRA. No lobby groups should 'own' the government." So, yes, you did say something about lobbying.

And any law that would bar the NRA from donating to politicians would end all contributions by all citizens to any group that passed them on to political campaigns.

 

[zoltanspawn]

It is possible to modify a semi-automatic weapon to function as a fully automatic one, but it is both illegal and still not up to military grade.

Cranks are legal in all but around 4 or 5 states I think. You can buy them online and have them mailed to you for 30 to 50 bucks. If you hook the crank up to a drill, it probably becomes what you would call 'fully automatic' and then they're illegal.

Gun fanatics seem to think they're crap though.

They prefer the aftermarket bumpfire, blessed by a letter of approval from the ATF.

Skip to around 1:33 for the highjinks. As darling Lisa Jean squeals, "full auto baby!"

I don't care if these meet the strict definitions of 'fully automatic' or 'military grade'. They're asinine and need to be banned.

 

[Kulindahr]

I’m glad there are plenty of good samaritans practicing their second amendment rights stopping mass shootings.

Oh wait...

Mostly the law forbids them from doing so, since most mass shootings take place in "gun free zones" established by law.

Before that, citizens did in fact move to stop mass shootings, a good example being the University of Texas shooting in 1966. But it still happens, a good example being the Mystic strip club shooting in Portland, where a bouncer with a concealed carry permit stpped a mass shooting a few years ago.

 

[Kulindahr]

Cranks are legal in all but around 4 or 5 states I think. You can buy them online and have them mailed to you for 30 to 50 bucks. If you hook the crank up to a drill, it probably becomes what you would call 'fully automatic' and then they're illegal.

Gun fanatics seem to think they're crap though.

They prefer the aftermarket bumpfire, blessed by a letter of approval from the ATF.

Skip to around 1:33 for the highjinks. As darling Lisa Jean squeals, "full auto baby!"

I don't care if these meet the strict definitions of 'fully automatic' or 'military grade'. They're asinine and need to be banned.

Bumpfire takes some skill to do -- she's obviously experienced at it.

The reason the ATF doesn't consider it full auto is the add-on/replacement stock isn't considered part of the firearm itself, thanks to obscure wording of (IIRC) the National Firearms Act which binds them. (And even a lot of people on shooting sites consider that sheer legal hair-splitting.)

And an argument can be made that anything that functions as fully auto, whether it is or not, should be stored at the owner's local militia post. Unfortunately, Congress has neglected the whole militia concept and its duty to impose discipline on the militia since the notion that the National Guard is the militia grew strong (a idea racist in concept, invented by the southern states in order to disarm blacks after the Civil War so the KKK could do its thing).


edit: from discussions I've lurked on, hooking a drill to a crank is illegal in most states, though the crank by itself is legal. The ATF, again, is bound by the NFA language, so since the drill is not an actual part of the firearm, it's legit. But yes, while a lot of shooters think a crank is a fun toy (because you can regulate the speed of your fire), using them with drills they're considered "crap".

 

[zoltanspawn]

NYT is reporting that one of the firearms Paddock had in his perch was outfitted with a bump stock. Some bump stocks go for as little as ninety nine bucks.

Bumpfire takes some skill to do -- she's obviously experienced at it.

It seems Paddock was obviously experienced at it, too.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Mostly the law forbids them from doing so, since most mass shootings take place in "gun free zones" established by law.

Before that, citizens did in fact move to stop mass shootings, a good example being the University of Texas shooting in 1966. But it still happens, a good example being the Mystic strip club shooting in Portland, where a bouncer with a concealed carry permit stpped a mass shooting a few years ago.

Damn, 2 stopped in over 60 years? Good track record.

 

[Kulindahr]

NYT is reporting that one of the firearms Paddock had in his perch was outfitted with a bump stock.

I've looked at blown-up images of two of the rifles, and one definitely looks like it.

It seems Paddock was obviously experienced at it, too.

He had the money to get experienced, apparently.

Full auto, whether ATF-defined or 'merely' functional, requires having a lot of disposable income -- even if you can manage to get ammo at under a dollar a round, it goes FAST, so it's not a game for most folks. At a shooting range near here, I watched a guy burn over a thousand dollars of ammunition in under five minutes... crazy, to most of us, but then he invited others to take a turn; in an afternoon of shooting, his one gun fired off enough $$ to buy a barely-used four-wheel-drive pickup.

 

[Kulindahr]

Damn, 2 stopped in over 60 years? Good track record.

I guess you missed the word "example".

The count is dozens since 2001 -- it's hard to get a good count because shootings that are stopped aren't nearly as good for ratings as ones that aren't, so they don't make the major media often.

 

[zoltanspawn]

He had the money to get experienced, apparently.

Full auto, whether ATF-defined or 'merely' functional, requires having a lot of disposable income -- even if you can manage to get ammo at under a dollar a round, it goes FAST, so it's not a game for most folks. At a shooting range near here, I watched a guy burn over a thousand dollars of ammunition in under five minutes... crazy, to most of us, but then he invited others to take a turn; in an afternoon of shooting, his one gun fired off enough $$ to buy a barely-used four-wheel-drive pickup.

I guess the money angle is sort of interesting, as a sidenote.

Wealth isn't a sturdy enough deterrent to mayhem, though.

Paddock had the bucks to kill. He did.

We need a better standard than riches to keep these assholes in check.

 

[Kulindahr]

I guess the money angle is sort of interesting, as a sidenote.

Wealth isn't a sturdy enough deterrent to mayhem, though.

Paddock had the bucks to kill. He did.

We need a better standard than riches to keep these assholes in check.

With reference to what I put in bold, as Martin Luther repeats numerous times in his Small Catechism, "This is most certainly true".

In terms of the bucks involved, this should be a wake-up call: for the most part, gun control laws de facto favor allowing the well-to-do to be armed and keep the poor (who are far more in need of self-defense) unarmed -- but as you said, wealth plainly isn't a deterrent to mayhem.

We really should have known this, since terrorists love to draw on the disaffected wealthy, but now it should be obvious.

The solution? For starters, do what those in the Founders time did with those who could afford the best of weapons: enroll them in militias, require them to train, and have officers over them who are responsible for their behavior. That was, really, the colonial version of "gun control": armed people associated with other armed people who held them to higher standards, and they were known by peers who could say, when necessary, that they were not "competent to arms" (and take action).
In a way, that's the real problem compared to the early years of the country: back then, someone who bought a gun was buying from someone who knew him, and who could decide not to on the basis of personal knowledge. With the very impersonal nature of business today, there's no personal knowledge -- and that removes a substantial check on idiots. Given the militia concept in the Constitution, the way to address this is to somehow restore that kind of relationship to the system.

 

[Telstra]

The US treated "the constitution" as the words from god and unchanging which is rather stupid.

Those people created the constitution over 200 years ago did not know anything about automatic machine guns ... etc. Therefore the constitution should be updated very often by experts in their fields.

 

[Kulindahr]

The US treated "the constitution" as the words from god and unchanging which is rather stupid.

Those people created the constitution over 200 years ago did not know anything about automatic machine guns ... etc. Therefore the constitution should be updated very often by experts in their fields.

Sorry, but there were machine guns back then -- they were just hand-cranked rather than self-powered.

As for treating the Constitution "as the words from god", that's how law is supposed to be treated: until it gets changed, you follow it; if you don't want to follow it, either be a criminal or work to get it changed.

 

[Telstra]

Sorry, but there were machine guns back then -- they were just hand-cranked rather than self-powered.

As for treating the Constitution "as the words from god", that's how law is supposed to be treated: until it gets changed, you follow it; if you don't want to follow it, either be a criminal or work to get it changed.

You missed "automatic" machine guns.
I said it should update constantly by experts ... it is STUPID not to update stuff like software or clothing or bed or TV ... etc

 

[zoltanspawn]

The solution? For starters, do what those in the Founders time did with those who could afford the best of weapons: enroll them in militias, require them to train, and have officers over them who are responsible for their behavior. That was, really, the colonial version of "gun control": armed people associated with other armed people who held them to higher standards, and they were known by peers who could say, when necessary, that they were not "competent to arms" (and take action).
In a way, that's the real problem compared to the early years of the country: back then, someone who bought a gun was buying from someone who knew him, and who could decide not to on the basis of personal knowledge. With the very impersonal nature of business today, there's no personal knowledge -- and that removes a substantial check on idiots. Given the militia concept in the Constitution, the way to address this is to somehow restore that kind of relationship to the system.

I appreciate that you have an idea of the way things should be. But, being a million miles away from such an unlikely enrollment, can you propose a more realistic policy? Or are you committed to your dreams?

 

[Kulindahr]

You missed "automatic" machine guns.
I said it should update constantly by experts ... it is STUPID not to update stuff like software or clothing or bed or TV ... etc

No, I didn't miss it, I presumed that you were smart enough to recognize that if they knew of hand-cranked machine guns they could visualize powered ones -- and in fact inventors were already working on it.

As for updating things, since the baseline for foundational law is human beings, especially our rights as individuals, no updating is needed until humans change significantly -- a process in which a mere two and a half centuries is less than an eye blink.

 

[Kulindahr]

I appreciate that you have an idea of the way things should be. But, being a million miles away from such an unlikely enrollment, can you propose a more realistic policy? Or are you committed to your dreams?

I am committed to the concept of the United States, which rests on a Constitution. To abandon that is to throw out all concept of individuals as beings with dignity and replace it with one regarding some individuals having dignity but the masses being herd animals.

Both big parties talk about the Constitution, but neither has any desire to be committed to it; all that is desired is power and the only real regard for the Constitution is mere lip service. Until we return to being committed to the Constitution, the course of the future will just be a struggle for power that will only end in a one-party state where no rights are honored, only privileges extended to those who can curry favor with The Party.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I guess you missed the word "example".

The count is dozens since 2001 -- it's hard to get a good count because shootings that are stopped aren't nearly as good for ratings as ones that aren't, so they don't make the major media often.

No, I’m being sarcastic because these discussions don’t mean anything when nothing is getting done and the death toll is getting higher.

At the end of the day, the good guys with guns and the second amendment argument are nothing more than silly when the amount of deaths with guns to the amount of mass shootings being stopped by guns is incredibly disproportionate.