Media Bias To The Extreme-"Dangerous Weapons Loophole"

[timcsaw]

"Ridiculous" always springs to mind when I see a gun like the .50 on sale, however, I will try and curtail my use of the word. It would be interesting to take the average person, show them the rifle, explain the power and range of the weapon, tell them for what the rifle is used militarily then ask them if it is the type of weapon that should be freely available to anyone with the cash. I imagine there's a pretty good chance that an overwhelming majority would be opposed to allowing civilian ownership of such a weapon. What do you think?

What about weapons larger than 50 cal.? How about 58 caliber, or 69 caliber? How about if these large caliber weapons were made into handguns (and not just long-arms)? Ridiculous? What if new technology improved the range and power of these large caliber handguns and long-arms to better than triple the effective range of such weapons? Ridiculous? Would/should the government prohibit the ownership and use of such advanced weapons by the general public?

If you showed one of our founding brothers one of these advanced, 69 caliber weapons (even made into a concealable handgun) with more than three times the effective range of ANYTHING previously known to him, would he change the writing of the 2nd amendment to prohibit such a weapon from ownership by "the people"? Would he use the amendment process to change the 2nd? Would he "dance around" and say, "But that's NOT an 'arm' for 'the people', because it is too large a caliber with triple the range and accuracy!!"? Careful now... this might be a trick question.

[ttoney83]

Perhaps guns are like pornography in that most of us know it when we see it? For instance, one doesn't have to see a ridiculously big rifle, with no real civilian use, marketed as the "Long Johnson .50" to know it's gun porn; wouldn't you agree?

IF one misinterpreted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, as many lawyers do, then one COULD make the argument that a Barret type rifle should not be available to the civilian population..... HowEVer, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is clear to anyone who has a basic knowlege of the English language and grammatical rules and so the argument of legitimate "civilian" use is irrelevant.....

The wording of the 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear, it is not legalese, not difficult to understand, and the intent is FURTHER CLARIFIED by the words of the Founders on the subject. The "civilian" population should, by RIGHT, have access to all ARMS available to Military forces. Only Lawyers seek to decieve and obfuscate. Honest, rational people have no difficulty understanding and properly interprety the Constitution....

I wonder how many republican lawmakers you could find that would be willing to define "arms", for 2nd amendment purposes, as including every weapon known to humankind?

Probably not many. But they would be wrong by not supporting that position anyway.....As quietmike points out, the Founders already did.....

[lepto]

What about weapons larger than 50 cal.? How about 58 caliber, or 69 caliber? How about if these large caliber weapons were made into handguns (and not just long-arms)? Ridiculous? What if new technology improved the range and power of these large caliber handguns and long-arms to better than triple the effective range of such weapons? Ridiculous?

Would/should the government prohibit the ownership and use of such advanced weapons by the general public? If you showed one of our founding brothers one of these advanced, 69 caliber weapons (even made into a concealable handgun) with more than three times the effective range of ANYTHING previously known to him, would he change the writing of the 2nd amendment and prohibit such a weapon from ownership by "the people"? Would he use the amendment process to change the 2nd? Would he "dance around" and say, "But that's NOT an 'arm'!!"? Careful now... this might be a trick question.

I think the founders were, as a group, a reasonable bunch of people. If you brought them into the 21st century, sans anything resembling the possibility of military-type attacks from, say, native Americans, and presented them with the facts about these high powered weapons I could well imagine their agreeing they should not be available on the civilian market.

IF one misinterpreted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, as many lawyers do, then one COULD make the argument that a Barret type rifle should not be available to the civilian population..... HowEVer, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is clear to anyone who has a basic knowlege of the English language and grammatical rules and so the argument of legitimate "civilian" use is irrelevant.....

The wording of the 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear, it is not legalese, not difficult to understand, and the intent is FURTHER CLARIFIED by the words of the Founders on the subject. The "civilian" population should, by RIGHT, have access to all ARMS available to Military forces. Only Lawyers seek to decieve and obfuscate. Honest, rational people have no difficulty understanding and properly interprety the Constitution....

I think you have it backwards; honest, rational people understand it is the textbook definition of lunacy to argue for civilian access to any weapon available to the military. That is why, for instance, you can't legally purchase and own an atomic bomb. To argue the definition of arms is, for all time, that general notion that may have been shared by a majority of the drafters of the constitution is to deceive the general public into believing there can never, under any circumstances, be any changes in how the constitution is interpreted. That simply is not the case, as evidenced by the reality of life in these United States, and to suggest otherwise is yet another textbook definition, this time, of obfuscation.

Probably not many. But they would be wrong by not supporting that position anyway.....As quietmike points out, the Founders already did.....

If the founders were unreasonable and thought the constitution was subject only to application and never interpretation then both you and quietmike might be correct. It defies logic, however, that the founders, so brilliant in the creation of such a document, would have been so obtuse as to think their interpretation would, for all time, be the only legitimate interpretation. Or, that parts of the constitution wouldn't have to be interpreted in light of societal changes over time. To do otherwise would be to make the future the slave of the past and I don't think they would have intended to hamstring our republic in such a fashion.

[quietmike]

I think the founders were, as a group, a reasonable bunch of people. If you brought them into the 21st century, sans anything resembling the possibility of military-type attacks from, say, native Americans, and presented them with the facts about these high powered weapons I could well imagine their agreeing they should not be available on the civilian market.

Yet they had no problem with civilians owning weapons that were the equivalent or better than the army of that time.

I think you have it backwards; honest, rational people understand it is the textbook definition of lunacy to argue for civilian access to any weapon available to the military. That is why, for instance, you can't legally purchase and own an atomic bomb. To argue the definition of arms is, for all time, that general notion that may have been shared by a majority of the drafters of the constitution is to deceive the general public into believing there can never, under any circumstances, be any changes in how the constitution is interpreted. That simply is not the case, as evidenced by the reality of life in these United States, and to suggest otherwise is yet another textbook definition, this time, of obfuscation.



If the founders were unreasonable and thought the constitution was subject only to application and never interpretation then both you and quietmike might be correct. It defies logic, however, that the founders, so brilliant in the creation of such a document, would have been so obtuse as to think their interpretation would, for all time, be the only legitimate interpretation. Or, that parts of the constitution wouldn't have to be interpreted in light of societal changes over time. To do otherwise would be to make the future the slave of the past and I don't think they would have intended to hamstring our republic in such a fashion.

This argument is completely negated by the amendment process. Is it any wonder liberals don't want to talk about amending the 2nd?

[BlackKnight86]

Perhaps guns are like pornography in that most of us know it when we see it? For instance, one doesn't have to see a ridiculously big rifle, with no real civilian use, marketed as the "Long Johnson .50" to know it's gun porn; wouldn't you agree?

Ugh....lepto, that is a terrible analogy. You are abusing Justice Stewart's words...just like with the old "yelling fire in a theater" quote. You know full well that, despite Justice Stewart's comment (easily given without challenge in a concurrence with the majority opinion), pornography has a clear and pretty specific definition, with equally clear and specific guidelines (Miller Standard). An individual may say "I know it when I see it"....to apply a vague and subjective measure to "most of us" is not logically defensible. Pretty sad, especially coming from an attorney.

First of all, you are comparing a whole class of action to a single object. There are no parallels on which you can draw such a comparison. It would have been much better if you had attempted to come up with a corresponding action done with firearms with which to draw your analogy; and then you'd still have to account for the prurient aspect of porn and in what portion of your analogy you'd find such a comparison.

Secondly, you filled your analogy with subjective wording. "Ridiculously big rifle, with no real civilian use" is undefined (except, of course, in the little world inside your head where you're always right) and has been countered multiple times in this very thread, both the "ridiculously big" part and the "no real civilian use" part. Do you seriously think that by merely repeating it over and over, it'll somehow become right; or are you no longer able to leave that little world inside your head?

Let's take your "analogy" and create a hypothetical scenario to test the consistency of your argument. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that you have a sort of intense "affinity" for poodles. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that you start to get "special" feelings when you see poodles, whether in real life or in pictures; and that you have a "special" collection of "poodle pics" for your own personal use.

My question to you is, would the rest of us be logically and rationally compelled to regard your poodle pic collection as "porn", just because it fits the definition for you?

[snip]...honest, rational people understand it is the textbook definition of lunacy to argue for civilian access to any weapon available to the military. That is why, for instance, you can't legally purchase and own an atomic bomb. To argue the definition of arms is, for all time, that general notion that may have been shared by a majority of the drafters of the constitution is to deceive the general public into believing there can never, under any circumstances, be any changes in how the constitution is interpreted. That simply is not the case, as evidenced by the reality of life in these United States, and to suggest otherwise is yet another textbook definition, this time, of obfuscation.

The general public are chimps; and the only deceiving being done is by the slick hustlers on both sides of the political spectrum who have them convinced that they don't need to follow the rules. The only issue with people owning weapons of any kind is usage; and the operative problem there is the quality of the person, not any intrinsic characteristic of the weapon. Perhaps you are projecting your own personal issues on others? Perhaps you have issues with self control that scare you into thinking that you couldn't handle big weapons? Perhaps that is why you like the idea of controlling other people, so that you aren't as scared? Because your statements are the "textbook definition" of control

If the founders were unreasonable and thought the constitution was subject only to application and never interpretation then both you and quietmike might be correct. It defies logic, however, that the founders, so brilliant in the creation of such a document, would have been so obtuse as to think their interpretation would, for all time, be the only legitimate interpretation. Or, that parts of the constitution wouldn't have to be interpreted in light of societal changes over time. To do otherwise would be to make the future the slave of the past and I don't think they would have intended to hamstring our republic in such a fashion.

The founders didn't need to account for interpretation of the Constitution at all, seeing as that THEY INCLUDED AN AMENDMENT PROCESS TO CHANGE IT.

[tvranesic]

I think you have it backwards; honest, rational people understand it is the textbook definition of lunacy to argue for civilian access to any weapon available to the military.

It seems the defining factor in your arguments is military weapons. You feel "lunacy" is defined as civilians have access to the likes of 9mm, .45, .40, .223, .308, and 12-gauge shotguns...all of which are calibers currently available to the U.S. military? Is it just the caliber that is the defining factor, or does the delivery system play a role as well.

[timcsaw]

I think the founders were, as a group, a reasonable bunch of people. If you brought them into the 21st century, sans anything resembling the possibility of military-type attacks from, say, native Americans, and presented them with the facts about these high powered weapons I could well imagine their agreeing they should not be available on the civilian market..

But that's just it isn't it? They DID allow all of those things into their civilian market. All of those "advanced", weapons that I mentioned - larger than 50 caliber, triple the range/accuracy etc. - were ALL things that were available during the lives of those who wrote the constitution. 69 caliber concealable pistols and long guns... the invention and common use of rifled barrels which tripled range and accuracy, multiple barrels, rapid reload etc. were all HUGE advancements in weapons technology that THEY themselves saw and lived (the Kentucky Rifle WAS their Barrett 50 cal. equivalent)... and yet they didn't restrict those weapons from "civilian" use.

[lepto]

Yet they had no problem with civilians owning weapons that were the equivalent or better than the army of that time.

True, and their weapons along with the time and place they lived in all went into their definition. Project them into the 21st century, explain to them the atomic bomb, and, doubtless, they would be completely open to the notion that "arms" might not include "all" arms.

This argument is completely negated by the amendment process. Is it any wonder liberals don't want to talk about amending the 2nd?

No need to go through the amendment process to interpret the constitution in a common sense fashion, after all, that's what we've actually done.

Ugh....lepto, that is a terrible analogy. You are abusing Justice Stewart's words...just like with the old "yelling fire in a theater" quote. You know full well that, despite Justice Stewart's comment (easily given without challenge in a concurrence with the majority opinion), pornography has a clear and pretty specific definition, with equally clear and specific guidelines (Miller Standard). An individual may say "I know it when I see it"....to apply a vague and subjective measure to "most of us" is not logically defensible. Pretty sad, especially coming from an attorney.

First of all, you are comparing a whole class of action to a single object. There are no parallels on which you can draw such a comparison. It would have been much better if you had attempted to come up with a corresponding action done with firearms with which to draw your analogy; and then you'd still have to account for the prurient aspect of porn and in what portion of your analogy you'd find such a comparison.

Secondly, you filled your analogy with subjective wording. "Ridiculously big rifle, with no real civilian use" is undefined (except, of course, in the little world inside your head where you're always right) and has been countered multiple times in this very thread, both the "ridiculously big" part and the "no real civilian use" part. Do you seriously think that by merely repeating it over and over, it'll somehow become right; or are you no longer able to leave that little world inside your head?

Damn, you're good. You almost changed my mind--that part not needed to support my fantasy world anyway. However, I don't think my analogy, as off the cuff as it was, has failed at all; in fact, I think most understand it and you, I believe, understand it completely. That's all I ask of my analogies. I'll agree that "ridiculously big" and "no real civilian use" were undefined terms used in a, slightly, hyperbolic fashion, however, I don't doubt most grasped their meaning also. Although I've heard some assert "target shooting" as a legitimate civilian use I find that unsatisfactory and unconvincing given the countless guns available for such activities that aren't as powerful and thus as dangerous as this particular rifle. The gun isn't suitable for hunting or personal safety. It simply has no real civilian use no matter how much anyone asserts otherwise. It is a toy for big boys and it's civilian ownership is the definition of "ridiculous", something clear to all, which probably accounts for all of the animosity shown the argument for responsibility.

Let's take your "analogy" and create a hypothetical scenario to test the consistency of your argument. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that you have a sort of intense "affinity" for poodles. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that you start to get "special" feelings when you see poodles, whether in real life or in pictures; and that you have a "special" collection of "poodle pics" for your own personal use.

My question to you is, would the rest of us be logically and rationally compelled to regard your poodle pic collection as "porn", just because it fits the definition for you?

It sure sounds like it. Do gun owners feel the same way about their guns as I feel about poodles in your analogy?

The general public are chimps; and the only deceiving being done is by the slick hustlers on both sides of the political spectrum who have them convinced that they don't need to follow the rules. The only issue with people owning weapons of any kind is usage; and the operative problem there is the quality of the person, not any intrinsic characteristic of the weapon. Perhaps you are projecting your own personal issues on others? Perhaps you have issues with self control that scare you into thinking that you couldn't handle big weapons? Perhaps that is why you like the idea of controlling other people, so that you aren't as scared? Because your statements are the "textbook definition" of control

I agree the issue is usage, however, since we can't trust everyone to use the really dangerous weapons responsibly that means we have to limit their availability. I don't see it as a control issue so much as trying to find a balance between the right to gun ownership and public safety.

The founders didn't need to account for interpretation of the Constitution at all, seeing as that THEY INCLUDED AN AMENDMENT PROCESS TO CHANGE IT.

Why should one be required to go to the trouble of amending the constitution when a reasonable interpretation of any specific portion will suffice? Surely you aren't arguing the constitution is not open to interpretation?

It seems the defining factor in your arguments is military weapons. You feel "lunacy" is defined as civilians have access to the likes of 9mm, .45, .40, .223, .308, and 12-gauge shotguns...all of which are calibers currently available to the U.S. military? Is it just the caliber that is the defining factor, or does the delivery system play a role as well.

I'm using "military" to distinguish between those weapons traditionally used only militarily and those that have had civilian uses, such as hunting and personal safety, in addition to military usage. The .50 is one that, in my mind, is in the grey area between what should and shouldn't be available for civilian ownership. Although I've clearly been outvoted on this, as evidenced by the availability of the .50, I see no use for the rifle sufficient to outweigh it's potential for harm. That, of course, is my opinion but one I think most people would share if presented with the actual gun along with a rundown of its capabilities.

[quietmike]

True, and their weapons along with the time and place they lived in all went into their definition. Project them into the 21st century, explain to them the atomic bomb, and, doubtless, they would be completely open to the notion that "arms" might not include "all" arms.

Would you be consistent enough to extend that logic? Could the founders have possibly envisioned radio? Internet? Live satellite news broadcasts from around the globe?

Certainly the founders didn't have these thing in mind when they gave freedom to the press.

See how that works?

[quietmike]

Why should one be required to go to the trouble of amending the constitution when a reasonable interpretation of any specific portion will suffice? Surely you aren't arguing the constitution is not open to interpretation?

How would you react if a bank "interpreted" your mortgage when the terms no longer suited them?

[Codger_64]

How would you react if a bank "interpreted" your mortgage when the terms no longer suited them?

It has been done quite recently.

[quietmike]

It has been done quite recently.

And there were howls of outrage by the same group of folks who think "interpreting" the constitution is a cute maneuver.

[lepto]

Would you be consistent enough to extend that logic? Could the founders have possibly envisioned radio? Internet? Live satellite news broadcasts from around the globe?

Certainly the founders didn't have these thing in mind when they gave freedom to the press.

See how that works?

I'm not following you?

How would you react if a bank "interpreted" your mortgage when the terms no longer suited them?

Generally, if there is a dispute it is in the interpretation of certain terms in the contract the same as when there is a dispute about the meaning of a term found in the constitution. Nothing new in that regards or am I missing something?

[ttoney83]

I think the founders were, as a group, a reasonable bunch of people. If you brought them into the 21st century, sans anything resembling the possibility of military-type attacks from, say, native Americans, and presented them with the facts about these high powered weapons I could well imagine their agreeing they should not be available on the civilian market.

I could not imagine them agreeing with your position at all in light of what they wrote regarding defense against tyrannical governments. I think if you presented them with the recent legislative actions by our government, they would be insistent that the People be allowed the full range of weaonry available to the Military.

I think you have it backwards; honest, rational people understand it is the textbook definition of lunacy to argue for civilian access to any weapon available to the military. That is why, for instance, you can't legally purchase and own an atomic bomb. To argue the definition of arms is, for all time, that general notion that may have been shared by a majority of the drafters of the constitution is to deceive the general public into believing there can never, under any circumstances, be any changes in how the constitution is interpreted. That simply is not the case, as evidenced by the reality of life in these United States, and to suggest otherwise is yet another textbook definition, this time, of obfuscation.

No sir, it is you who have it all twisted. In light of History, the textbook definition of lunacy is in not allowing the Citizenry access to all available means to defend themselves against their own government and that includes all Arms available to the Military. History has shown that whenever a government has sought to disarm its citiznry, mass murder by government follows.

And you would say that it is sane to allow governments to own nuclear weapons? If that's so, that's nuts......

As far as interpretation goes, the Constitution is clear and in no need of interpretation. It DOES include an Amendment process so that if enough people deem a particular part of the Constitution no longer applicable, they can attempt to persuade enough others to agree with them and, Amend the Constitution. Again we have it demonstrated that Lawyers seem the only ones who seek to decieve and obfuscate. I understand that the simplicity and clarity of the Constitution can be frustrating to those who wish to impose their will on others, but there is no need to attempt to decieve when one has available the avenue of logical argument and the Amendment process.....UNLESS, of course, logic is not on one's side, in which case, deception is the only avenue available.....It is a brilliantly written document.

If the founders were unreasonable and thought the constitution was subject only to application and never interpretation then both you and quietmike might be correct. It defies logic, however, that the founders, so brilliant in the creation of such a document, would have been so obtuse as to think their interpretation would, for all time, be the only legitimate interpretation. Or, that parts of the constitution wouldn't have to be interpreted in light of societal changes over time. To do otherwise would be to make the future the slave of the past and I don't think they would have intended to hamstring our republic in such a fashion.

Again, it is not a question of "interpretation" as such, as the Constitution is AMENDABLE......

[Preacher Man]

True, and their weapons along with the time and place they lived in all went into their definition. Project them into the 21st century, explain to them the atomic bomb, and, doubtless, they would be completely open to the notion that "arms" might not include "all" arms.

Would you be consistent enough to extend that logic? Could the founders have possibly envisioned radio? Internet? Live satellite news broadcasts from around the globe?

Certainly the founders didn't have these thing in mind when they gave freedom to the press.

See how that works?

I'm not following you?

I think what Mike is saying is that there are constitutional principles that are not limited to the knowledge and technology available to the framers. His example, freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not limited to the forms or mediums of speech and press known to the framers. Although the framers could not envision our technological advances, everything we define as speech and press is protected by the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. His point been that technological advancements in weapons technology should be treated the same way.

[quietmike]

I'm not following you?

Preacher Man explained it very well above, though I don't know why it would be difficult to understand.

Generally, if there is a dispute it is in the interpretation of certain terms in the contract the same as when there is a dispute about the meaning of a term found in the constitution. Nothing new in that regards or am I missing something?

Only missing an answer. How would you react if a loan officer "interpreted" your mortgage?

[timcsaw]

I think what Mike is saying is that there are constitutional principles that are not limited to the knowledge and technology available to the framers. His example, freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not limited to the forms or mediums of speech and press known to the framers. Although the framers could not envision our technological advances, everything we define as speech and press is protected by the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. His point been that technological advancements in weapons technology should be treated the same way.

I interpret "freedom of the press" to mean that all printing presses should be released from captivity and allowed to run free in the wild.

If we circumvented "freedom of speech" in the same way that many have the 2nd amendment, the socially liberal left would be up in arms (bare arms of course).

[tvranesic]

Well, MSN continues their campaign of inaccuracies and misleading journalism regarding firearms: http://now.msn.com/now/0312-double-b...d-handgun.aspx

With more over-dramatization, sensationalism, and outright fear-mongering they were able to come up with these gems: "the killing power of a double-barreled shotgun" and "can hit a target the size of an orange 15 yards away". And then there's the sensational title "Chilling New Handgun Unveiled".

As with their story on the .50 cal, they strongly imply that deadliness and accuracy of the weapon is somehow independent of the individual wielding it. When the trigger is pulled, the bullet will somehow magically strike a target the size of an orange at 15 yards. I can consistently and easily strike a target the size of a walnut at twice that distance with my .22, as could just about any reasonably experienced shooter. The killing power of a double-barreled shotgun...really? I'd love to know how they even came up with that crap. It was either written by someone who doesn't even have a basic understanding of firearms, or it was just a plain fabrication intended to further their agenda. A 12-gauge loaded with #0 buckshot will unleash 9 .32 balls with twin barrels sending twice that number down range into any form of unsuspecting fruit.

[timcsaw]

Well, MSN continues their campaign of inaccuracies and misleading journalism regarding firearms: http://now.msn.com/now/0312-double-b...d-handgun.aspx

With more over-dramatization, sensationalism, and outright fear-mongering they were able to come up with these gems: "the killing power of a double-barreled shotgun" and "can hit a target the size of an orange 15 yards away". And then there's the sensational title "Chilling New Handgun Unveiled".

As with their story on the .50 cal, they strongly imply that deadliness and accuracy of the weapon is somehow independent of the individual wielding it. When the trigger is pulled, the bullet will somehow magically strike a target the size of an orange at 15 yards. I can consistently and easily strike a target the size of a walnut at twice that distance with my .22, as could just about any reasonably experienced shooter. The killing power of a double-barreled shotgun...really? I'd love to know how they even came up with that crap. It was either written by someone who doesn't even have a basic understanding of firearms, or it was just a plain fabrication intended to further their agenda. A 12-gauge loaded with #0 buckshot will unleash 9 .32 balls with twin barrels sending twice that number down range into any form of unsuspecting fruit.

An attack by fresh fruit is best beaten by releasing the tiger (unless raspberries are involved... then you drop a 16 ton weight on them). I thought this was common knowledge?

[ttoney83]

I think what Mike is saying is that there are constitutional principles that are not limited to the knowledge and technology available to the framers. His example, freedom of speech and freedom of the press is not limited to the forms or mediums of speech and press known to the framers. Although the framers could not envision our technological advances, everything we define as speech and press is protected by the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. His point been that technological advancements in weapons technology should be treated the same way.

Very well put Preacher Man! But I suspect quietmike's line of argument was easily followed by Lepto. Lepto isn't stupid by a long shot. The Principles defined in the Declaration and the Constitution are indeed timeless and nearly impossible to refute by logical argument.