Guns and Stuff.

[unixknight]

27 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Seems to me the major problem this forum has with me is that it just does not appreciate being shaken out of it's folk-knowledge comfort zone. That's not meant to be an insult, by the way. Many religious people, of many persuasions, are exactly the same way. I do not rate you as any worse than any others.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Brother, I just have to say, this is a shockingly condescending attitude.  Here's how it comes across:

"This forum would listen if only the people weren't so set in their narrow perspective.  I don't blame you,  most religious people are just as narrow as you are.  I don't judge you to be any worse."

"Folk-knowledge comfort zone?"  Several people, including myself, have provided facts, data, science and statistics to support their arguments.  By what bizarre definition does that constitute "folk-knowledge?" 

Wow.

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

OK. Here I go. 'Social injustice' is the absence of social justice.

So what is 'social justice'? One could write books on this, and doubtless many have, with differing perspectives.

One thing is pretty certain; it's an impossible goal, in this life at least, which is precisely why I believe there must be an afterlife, to give a just God the opportunity to right the wrongs of the world.

But just because it's impossible, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive after it, and make such implementations as are possible to make the world more 'socially just'.

So far, none of this serves to define "social justice" in any way.  So far, all that's been said is that it's a goal that cannot be attained, but should be sought after.

 

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

And I would advocate that we consider three dimensions of humanity, and three dimensions of community, when we consider how to do this; all with the same goal, that none should be especially disadvantaged for just being who they are, unless they are adjudged criminal.

The three dimensions of humanity would be: Physical, Mental, and Spiritual.

The three dimensions of community would be: Political, Social, and Economic.

It seems that what you're referring to here is equality of opportunity, which I suspect most of us here would agree is important and should be sought after if at all possible.

 

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, from this broad approach we can derive principled targets such as universal suffrage, the eradication of absolute poverty, the complete end of slavery, the medical attempt to stop preventable disease, parity of esteem for physical and mental injuries, freedom of conscience (especially religious worship), and so on.

None of those are principles with which most here would disagree.  We hold the right to vote to be universal (for citizens of a nation), we work to combat poverty through a variety of means, we aggressively prosecute human traffickers, vast amounts of resources are spent on research to reduce and eliminate disease, there's a growing movement to improve mental health resources in this country and the Constitution of the United States (unlike most other nations) guarantees basic human rights.

We dont't, however, use the term "social justice" because, at least in this country, "social justice" is used in association with the idea of equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of   opportunity.  Those are very different things. 

[2ndRateMind]

Quote

Several people, including myself, have provided facts, data, science and statistics to support their arguments.

unixknight, you are one of the least worst offenders.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Brother, I just have to say, this is a shockingly condescending attitude.  

It is. Luckily his opinion doesn't matter to anyone but himself and maybe, just maybe his immediate family. 

[2ndRateMind]

26 minutes ago, unixknight said:

None of those are principles with which most here would disagree. 

Hooray! At last, a small degree of agreement!

Now I'm going to spoil it!

Quote

We don't, however, use the term "social justice" because, at least in this country, "social justice" is used in association with the idea of equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of   opportunity.  Those are very different things. 

A disparity of equality of outcome leads inevitably to a disparity of equality of opportunity.

To illustrate; let's say your father was a serial entrepreneur. He started from nothing, earned his first stake by working in fast food restaurants, invested it judiciously, and ended up, say, a real estate tycoon. Throughout your youth and education, you have the benefit of his wealth, and eventually graduate from Yale with a law degree. Then he dies, and leaves his entire $2 billion portfolio to you. Clearly, when he does, you have a considerable advantage over the rest of your contemporaries, working in fast food restaurants, to make their first stakes. Not much equality of opportunity, there.

So my question to you is, at what point does this real advantage of outcome need be curtailed to make for a genuine equality of opportunity?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 19, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Well that is exactly my point.

Ok.  Now we're getting somewhere.  You've begun to shift a little.  That's encouraging.  But you're also shifting goal posts.  That's discouraging.

Quote

They are inseparably linked. By that chain of justification.

I think we're having a semantic disagreement here. You say "chain" -- which now that I think of it, is not an entirely incorrect metaphor.  But when you describe the justification, your description is not a chain.  It is a stack of stones.  One sits on top of the other. -- Just look at your earlier post about the hierarchy of "good".  There is not hierarchy in the 2nd amendment.  They're all rolled into one.

Think of it as sides of the same coin.  Think of it as a pair of twins.  Think of it as a pair of best friends that would never be separated.  Think of it as husband and wife.  Think of it as time and money.

So, go ahead and say "chain" if you wish.  But recognize that it isn't a straight line.  They are all rolled into one.

Quote

Unless you have a different linkage in mind you have not specified.

As described before.

Quote

As for a free people needing some right to keep and bear military grade automatic assault weaponry, irrespective of their criminal past or mental health status,  (which are not checked on purchases at arms fairs, for example) I hope to pick up on that, later. Now, I really must go.

Now you're moving the goalposts.  You were not talking about these before.  I even asked you for them and instead you chose to bark up a different tree.

Now that you've answered these, then I'll address them.

We currently have a ban on automatic assault weapons.  It is already illegal for average citizens to obtain these.  The fact that criminals obtain these tells us that making it illegal has not eliminated their use.  It is ALREADY ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES.  It doesn't matter if you've got a criminal past or not.  It doesn't matter if you have a mental health issue or not.  IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR EVERYONE. Try to pick up on that.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Guest

[zil]

30 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

unixknight, you are one of the least worst offenders.

Best wishes, 2RM

In other words, @unixknight, you're an offender of the "worse" but not "worst" variety.  Congratulations.

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

In other words, @unixknight, you're an offender of the "worse" but not "worst" variety.  Congratulations.

Hey, being at the head of the remedial summer school classroom is still the head of the class!

[unixknight]

16 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

A disparity of equality of outcome leads inevitably to a disparity of equality of opportunity.

To illustrate; let's say your father was a serial entrepreneur. He started from nothing, earned his first stake by working in fast food restaurants, invested it judiciously, and ended up, say, a real estate tycoon. Throughout your youth and education, you have the benefit of his wealth, and eventually graduate from Yale with a law degree. Then he dies, and leaves his entire $2 billion portfolio to you. Clearly, when he does, you have a considerable advantage over the rest of your contemporaries, working in fast food restaurants, to make their first stakes. Not much equality of opportunity, there.

So my question to you is, at what point does this real advantage of outcome need be curtailed to make for a genuine equality of opportunity?

I think this reflects a difference in understanding of what constitutes an equality of opportunity. 

It's true that some people are born into better circumstances than others.  Some people get to be Kennedys, some grow up in rural Appalachia.  The deeper question is, does THAT constitute unfairness?  Obviously a Kennedy has a lot of money while someone growing up in the back country of Appalachia doesn't.  Unequal?  Yes.  Unfair?

Hmmm.

Well maybe the kid growing up in the backcountry has a complete family, a strong moral grounding, both parents living and a part of his life.  Maybe he's got a solid church upbringing and learns a trade tat allows him  to live comfortably (by his standards) with a wife and a family of his own.  I'd say that's not a bad existence at all.  Meanwhile, I wouldn't want to live a life like many of the Kennedys  have had.  Would you?  Devoid of any spirituality, a life of scrutiny by the public, massive pressure to live a certain way...  JFK Jr. dies in a plane crash and became the butt of all kinds of cruel jokes.  Not a very desirable legacy.  He just isn't really known or remembered for much else besides having a famous father and being the editor of a magazine that most people have never even heard of.

When we talk about equality of opportunity we're talking about the law.  Nobody should be held back due to factors like race, sex, or religion because we know and understand that those factors don't determine the worth of any individual human.  We've made efforts to clear away obstacles by providing free education, passing anti-discrimination laws and so on.  What an individual does with their life is up to them.  Some get an economic advantage but it isn't obvious to me that it necessarily equates to a better life. 

The problem with equality of outcome is that in order to make it so that every single person ends the race in exactly the same place, you would need massive Government control and a tyrannical grip on the way each person lives in order to force them to be all the same.  Idon't know about you, but that doesn't sound very appealing to me.

[2ndRateMind]

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ok.  Now we're getting somewhere.  You've begun to shift a little.  That's encouraging.

We currently have a ban on automatic assault weapons.  It is already illegal for average citizens to obtain these.  The fact that criminals obtain these tells us that making it illegal has not eliminated their use.  It is ALREADY ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES.  It doesn't matter if you've got a criminal past or not.  It doesn't matter if you have a mental health issue or not.  IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR EVERYONE. Try to pick up on that.

Hmmm. Are military grade semi-automatic assault weapons legal then?

It seems wikipedia thinks so, anyway:

The majority of states, forty-three, have no assault weapons ban, although two, Minnesota and Virginia, have training and background check requirements for purchasers of assault weapons that are more stringent than those for ordinary firearms. While there are no statewide assault weapon bans in Colorado and Illinois, local bans exist in certain cities or counties in each of these states. In 2018, most Americans supported a ban on assault weapons, according to polls.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. Are military grade semi-automatic assault weapons legal then?

It seems wikipedia thinks so, anyway:

The majority of states, forty-three, have no assault weapons ban, although two, Minnesota and Virginia, have training and background check requirements for purchasers of assault weapons that are more stringent than those for ordinary firearms. While there are no statewide assault weapon bans in Colorado and Illinois, local bans exist in certain cities or counties in each of these states. In 2018, most Americans supported a ban on assault weapons, according to polls.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You do know the difference between “automatic” and “semi-automatic”, right?  Because your post to which @Carborendum was replying spoke of automatic weapons; but now you’re talking about semi-auto.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[2ndRateMind]

Yeah. I know that difference. In a previous life, I was (briefly) in the British army, during the cold-war era. We trained with the semi-automatic 7.62mm L1A1 SLR (self loading rifle), which was standard issue for most ranks, the 9mm Sterling SMG (sub machine gun), which tended to go to senior NCOs, the 9mm Browning Pistol, for officers and senior NCOs, the 7.62mm GPMG (general purpose machine gun), and various other fun things like the 84mm Carl Gustav Anti Tank Weapon, and the 66mm LAW (light anti tank weapon). And I seem to remember chucking a few grenades around, as well, of sundry types.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 19, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. Are military grade semi-automatic assault weapons legal then?

It seems wikipedia thinks so, anyway:

The majority of states, forty-three, have no assault weapons ban, although two, Minnesota and Virginia, have training and background check requirements for purchasers of assault weapons that are more stringent than those for ordinary firearms. While there are no statewide assault weapon bans in Colorado and Illinois, local bans exist in certain cities or counties in each of these states. In 2018, most Americans supported a ban on assault weapons, according to polls.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Ahhh.  I'm sorry to have to tell you this.  But what you've just done is exposed a glaring point of ignorance on your part.  I say "ignorance" from the exact technical meaning, not as an insult.

The term "assault weapon" already has a common definition that anyone who knows about firearms already knows and understands and uses consistently.  The "legal definition" is being debated.  The very first line of the Wiki article you linked to says:

Quote

...refers to bills and laws (active, expired, proposed or failed) that define and restrict or make illegal...

Assault rifle specifically has the trait of being FULLY automatic.  Please Google it. 

Recognize the difference between fully-automatic and semi-automatic.  Virtually all firearms now manufactured are semi-automatic.

Once you go look that up, please report on what you find and we can continue the discussion.

[Vort]

9 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

There is some talk of rights as being inalienable and ordained by God. But even a cursory reading of history shows that rights are far from inalienable.

How so? Do you think that someone oppressing another from exercising his rights somehow makes those rights cease to exist?

[2ndRateMind]

27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ahhh.  I'm sorry to have to tell you this.  But what you've just done is exposed a glaring point of ignorance on your part.  I say "ignorance" from the exact technical meaning, not as an insult.

The term "assault weapon" already has a common definition that anyone who knows about firearms already knows and understands and uses consistently.  The "legal definition" is being debated.  The very first line of the Wiki article you linked to says:

Assault rifle specifically has the trait of being FULLY automatic.  Please Google it. 

Recognize the difference between fully-automatic and semi-automatic.  Virtually all firearms now manufactured are semi-automatic.

Once you go look that up, please report on what you find and we can continue the discussion.

Then, pardon my ignorance, but why do you say assault weapons are illegal in the US, while wikipedia specifically says that 43 states have no assault weapons ban? Are they as confused as me?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 19, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Then, pardon my ignorance, but why do you say assault weapons are illegal in the US, while wikipedia specifically says that 43 states have no assault weapon's ban? Are they as confused as me?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Because he didn’t.  He referred to the illegality of automatic assault weapons; and with very few exceptions, he is correct—they’ve been so highly regulated as to be next-to-impossible to legally own, since the 1930s.  

[person0]

14 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Then, pardon my ignorance, but why do you say assault weapons are illegal in the US, while wikipedia specifically says that 43 states have no assault weapons ban? Are they as confused as me?

You mean this Wikipedia article?  Which says:

Quote

"An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." (emphasis added)

Then if you follow the link for selective-fire you can see what that means:

Quote

Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode.

Hence, a real assault weapon is a weapon capable of fully automatic firing.

Notice also the Merriam-Webster definition:

Quote

"any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire" (emphasis added)

The second definition, highlighted in orange, is actually a modern leftist colloquialism to further their gun control agenda.  Originally the term assault rifle only referred to weapons that had full automatic capability.  So, yes, many other people are as confused as you, because they have been intentionally misled by leftists and those who repeat their message and/or talking points.  Real assault weapons (fully automatic) are almost entirely illegal in the USA; there are a few extremely limited exceptions.

Edited May 19, 2018 by person0

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Then, pardon my ignorance, but why do you say assault weapons are illegal in the US, while wikipedia specifically says that 43 states have no assault weapon's ban? Are they as confused as me?

Best wishes, 2RM.

See JAG's post above.

See Person0's post above.

I believe your confusion seems to be based on two things.

• The difference between state and federal laws.  Federal laws are those passed by the national government in Washington D.C.
• Definition of assault rifle.

The Federal Government passed the National Firearms Act which effectively makes any "machine guns" illegal to own by civilians.  So, regardless of state laws or lack of state laws, any fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US.

The term "assault weapon" doesn't have a widely recognized legal definition.  The State laws are there to define that term.  The commonly recognized definition by firearms manufacturers, experts, and officianados, would require that the weapon be fully automatic.

Some states are trying to change that definition so they can make additional weapons illegal.  Since the term "machine gun" is already defined federally, the states decided to define a different, but related word so they can further infringe on our gun rights.

2RM,

I hope you recognize that I've really been very polite to you in the past several posts on this matter.  I don't feel it incumbent upon me to educate you on all the ins and outs of different types of guns and the different reasons for them and the laws currently in place.  I hope you have come to the point that you can say,"Yes, I guess I've got a lot to learn before I can render judgment on the gun control question as well as the Americans who want to keep their guns."

I'd really appreciate it if you took the time to look up the definitions of semi-automatic and fully-automatic.  This is really a kindergarten level lesson. (Kindergarten is the lowest level of public school in the US.  I don't know if you call them by the same names in the UK.)

I'd also ask you to study different types of guns and what the different features do.  The primary argument about some so called "assault rifles" is that they are not any different than other rifles that don't "look as scary".  So, they basically want to ban rifles that just "look scary".  But they have no additional lethality functionality than other rifles that are approved.  Some like the look of them.  Some believe they feel more comfortable to carry and use.  Whatever.  But the lethality is not different.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Guest

[2ndRateMind]

35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Because he didn’t.  He referred to the illegality of automatic assault weapons; and with very few exceptions, he is correct—they’ve been so highly regulated as to be next-to-impossible to legally own, since the 1930s.  

Sorry to nit-pick, but he also said:

Quote

Assault rifle specifically has the trait of being FULLY automatic. 

while wikipedia said:

Quote

The majority of states, forty-three, have no assault weapons ban, 

 

So, it seems that our good friend Carborendum, and our (maybe not altogether reliable) source wikipedia, are using the same word to mean different things. Well, that's maybe not necessarily the fault of anyone.

To my mind, the simple definition of an automatic weapon is that when you depress the trigger, and keep it depressed, bullets keep on coming out of the barrel. Can we agree on that, for the sake of argument?

The simple definition of a semi-automatic weapon is that when you depress the trigger, you fire one, and only one, bullet. But the next round is loaded into the firing chamber for you without necessity for any other operator intervention. You then need to depress the trigger again, to fire that round. Are we similarly agreed on that?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 19, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, it seems that our good friend Carborendum, and our (maybe not altogether reliable) source wikipedia, are using the same word to mean different things. Well, that's maybe not necessarily the fault of anyone.

To my mind, the simple definition of an automatic weapon is that when you depress the trigger, and keep it depressed, bullets keep on coming out of the barrel. Can we agree on that, for the sake of argument?

Best wishes, 2RM.

2RM,

I've been very polite.  But you're doing something that is HIGHLY impolite.  I'd respectfully ask, in the name of politeness to cease this behavior.  

I write multiple statements to help educate you.  And you choose to only read some and ignore the rest.  This is called "cherry picking".  And it is considered an unethical method of arriving at a conclusion.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Guest

[2ndRateMind]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

2RM, I've been very polite. 

Indeed you have.

Quote

And you choose to only read some and ignore the rest.

On the contrary, I am simply trying to clarify those things I am not clear about.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Just_A_Guy]

13 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Sorry to nit-pick, but he also said:

while wikipedia said:

 

So, it seems that our good friend Carborendum, and our (maybe not altogether reliable) source wikipedia, are using the same word to mean different things. Well, that's maybe not necessarily the fault of anyone.

To my mind, the simple definition of an automatic weapon is that when you depress the trigger, and keep it depressed, bullets keep on coming out of the barrel. Can we agree on that, for the sake of argument?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Sure.  And can we also agree that @Carborendum‘s position has consistently been that such weapons are effectively banned in the US, and have been for the better part of a hundred years?

[Guest]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

On the contrary, I am simply trying to clarify those things I am not clear about.

Can I be any more clear than:

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I believe your confusion seems to be based on two things.

• The difference between state and federal laws.  Federal laws are those passed by the national government in Washington D.C.
• Definition of assault rifle.

The Federal Government passed the National Firearms Act which effectively makes any "machine guns" illegal to own by civilians.  So, regardless of state laws or lack of state laws, any fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US.

The term "assault weapon" doesn't have a widely recognized legal definition.  The State laws are there to define that term.  The commonly recognized definition by firearms manufacturers, experts, and officianados, would require that the weapon be fully automatic.

Some states are trying to change that definition so they can make additional weapons illegal.  Since the term "machine gun" is already defined federally, the states decided to define a different, but related word so they can further infringe on our gun rights.

What specific statement here is so confusing that you could not find the answer to your question above?

[2ndRateMind]

So, I'm sure you can guess where I am going with this. Given the different interpretations of the word 'assault weapon', and according to my simple description of the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons;

1) Are automatic weapons illegal for civilians?

2) Are semi-automatic weapons illegal for civilians?

I'm genuinely interested to know.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

2) Are semi-automatic weapons illegal for civilians?

You mean like this $120 .22 caliber rifle?

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

1) Are automatic weapons illegal for civilians?

Yes, with a very few exceptions.  We've said this multiple times.

Quote

2) Are semi-automatic weapons illegal for civilians?

Depends on the type and the state.

Notice that once you remove the ambiguous meaning of "assault rifle" then the answers are crystal clear.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Guest