champu

Owning "a" weapon might be. Owning every type of weapon is not. Where in the Constitution does it say that? "keep and bear arms" not "keep and bear all arms" Which is why SCOTUS has upheld other restrictions of the 2nd amendment. Where does it say "only keep and bear the arms the government says you can keep and bear" The whole discussion of the constitutionality of the restriction or banning of particular types of weapons (as distinct from any discussion of how we might approach the problem of keeping any firearms away from those we agree should not have them) is begging the question. So far in all these threads we have, hopefully, seen that... 1) While firearms classified as assault weapons, both in the 1994 ban and the latest piece of legistlation from Feinstein, have been used in some recent high-profile shootings, they are a fraction of homicides involving rifles, which are a relatively small fraction (500-600 out of several thousand) of all firearm-related homicides, which are a fraction of all firearm related deaths. 2) The definitions of assault weapons in both the 1994 ban and the latest piece of legistlation from Feinstein are laregly cosmetic in nature, and have a focus on certain firearms based on their similar appearance to military firearms. There has not been evidence presenting showing the relationship of the features being banned and the firearms deadliness, nor propensity to be used in homicides. 3) The DHS has evaluated at least one such weapon (the most popular model) and found it to be suitable as a close-quarters personal defense weapon. An intruder breaking into a house while the homeowner is there can fairly be considered a "close-quarters personal defense" situation. 4) This whole federal AWB may, in fact, simply be a barginning chip (oh how those work out so well, see: sequestration) used by democrats to ensure some of the other proposed measures get through. So what's the point of arguing if an ineffective, poorly written, ill-conceived, barginning chip of a law would pass muster in the SCOTUS? It's a stupid law... it can be constitutional or not it's still a stupid law...

You cite her often. She must be very wise. I'm flattered you'd think my endorsement, even made in jest, to be a seal of wisdom. Unless those were two completely independent /coincident statements...

Quick! Somebody get her a cheeseburger!

If it makes you feel any worse, I have one job (in California), with three desks (though none are especially nice), and taxpayers pay to fly me across the country a few times a year too... ...oh, and I'm also writing this on an iPhone and agree for posting on this site it's less than ideal. ...oh and Kool-aid doesn't fit the profile, childhood obesity being the problem it is.

"Absolutism is for the weak minded." -Unknown Fair enough. Now prove where I'm wrong. I used to smoke on occasion. I found it enjoyable, and a relaxing way to take a break from really long hours. I stopped a few years ago because in the long term, yes obviously, the trade-off isn't worth it. That said, I think insurance companies charging more for risky behaviors is plenty fair, and a perfect example of free markets at work. What causes heartburn, I think, is when you have the government saying, "you have to take everyone, and here's a list of people you can charge more." Companies are motivated by money. That means they employ actuaries to make decisions about what groups need to cost more for them to come out ahead. Governments are motivated by getting votes for the elected officials that run them and, as I think we've seen, very little by making fiscally responsible decisions. That means they may talk to actuaries, but what comes out of the sausage factory may be more motivated by the whims of public perception. "Let's have more reasonable discussions and fewer absolute stands." -Unknown

"Absolutism is for the weak minded." -Unknown

Oh, that's a thing now, is it?

I've tried, on here, to refer to folks who support a renewed AWB (or have argued in favor of it that one time at a party back in college when they had too much) "ban curious" but I don't think the term is catching on.

What would it have been producing prior to that point?

Why did you put "adults" in quotes?

The reason my original post was sarcastic was because the very title of the thread is complaining about the fact that people in favor of an assault weapon ban often don't know, and probably don't care, about the details and the implications of what they are trying to get rid of (or stop the manufacture of.) And then the OP proceeds to focus on a detail that people in favor of a ban completely don't care about, and he does so in an arguably misleading way. It's not helping. It's the opposite of helping. If people read one post in this thread they should read DrewEckhardt's post #17 back on the first page. It was the most useful in communicating the problem with any "assault weapon" ban we can expect to see and, as one would expect, nobody had anything to say in reply to it. Some people will never care. Some would be happy to stand over a tied up firearm owner shoving wadded up copies of a passed assault weapon bill down the person's throat shouting, "suck our shit! suck our shitty laws! you like that, huh? You lost to the majority and it doesn't matter that that laws are idiotic because we won!" ...but if we pretend that everyone we're talking to thinks that way then we will end up with another misguided ban.

Is it usual in this forum for the modertors to use personal attacks? Was that really called for? It seems like there is a real one sided attitude with the moderators up in here. I wouldn't take a response like that personally, that's just how quade posts. Some moderators come off a little more heated than others.

Thank you for the more measured response. I'm aware that the ".22" in ".223" literally makes it "a .22 caliber" I just would never call a rifle chambered in .223 "a .22 caliber" because growing up "a .22" meant a ".22 LR" and given the popularity of the .22 LR, I think that would be a fair assumption for people to make. The rounds are so different that saying "they're both .22" in an effort to downplay the power of the .223 is as bad as people arbitrarily calling the same round "high-power" when it's really not relative to most of the other popular hunting rounds out there. That's all I'm trying to say.

uh... the .223 (5.56x45) is not "also known as a .22 caliber" except maybe as a joke amongst people who prefer the .308 (7.62x51) The .22 LR (5.6x15) is "also known as a .22 caliber"

The Iranians still operate F-4s, F-5s, F-14s, and P-3 tankers (in addition to MiGs and Sukhois.) /edited to add: I did notice the article referred to them as "Lockheed Martin F-16s" to make sure no one went rushing off to buy GD stock.

I don't know why that would come up in the accident report, so I doubt that would end up in statistics. The number of people in each vehicle and their condition (to include drunk, regardless of relevancy) makes sense to record though. (Btw in this particular part of the analogy I'm referring to people including firearms being confiscated by police during some other action as, "guns involved in crimes." Technically accurate, but intentionally misleading.)

Given the flak the international community, the US included, gave Russia over delivering helicopters to Assad's Regime in Syria... ...yeah this is probably not a great idea.

Friends don't let friends drink drunk. But really, I bumped this post because I have another analogy (I'm a Hofstadter fan, deal with it) In response to drunk driving we have BAC limits. Great. We have field sobriety tests and breathalyzers. Excellent. We have harsh penalties for DUIs. All right. We have TV adverts running regularly. Good thinking. We have random police checkpoints. Kinda annoying, but I guess maybe it helps. We have inflated statistics about "alcohol related traffic accidents" to include accidents where anyone involved was drunk, even passengers in the not-at-fault vehicle. Wait, why would you do that? We've banned whiskey and shot glasses, because shots of whiskey get you really drunk and you still feel like you can drive... ...oh wait no we didn't because that's idiotic.

Well, the argument for banning magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and banning the part that goes up is, upon last inspection, that they are allegedly what enable so many to be killed in a tragedy like this. Seeing as this opinion is based on anecdotal evidence, one would think that at the very least the anecdotes would have to be accurate. Personally, I think you had it nailed in the first four words of your post. The sum total of all the proposed gun control actions and the sum total of all the proposed gun control actions minus the magazine and part that goes up ban will have the exact same effect on things.

It may have sold more guns but I was talking about the debate over what legislation (if any beyond the EOs Obama issued) will come out of all of this. Drumming up the usual suspects to yell louder about more ridiculous things does not improve the chances that a bad/ineffective idea put forth by gun control advocates will be stopped. Just like drumming up the usual suspects to yell louder about more ridiculous things did not get Romney elected.

Right, and that didn't work. Beating drums to get the usual suspects from the conservative side of the spectrum to the polls isn't the power play it used to be. Meanwhile, gun owners are on their back feet trying to defend "high-capacity magazines" as though that was actually what people were proposing getting of.

The NRA isn't spinning this or controlling the tone of the debate at all, they are just making louder and wilder accusations. Judging by how well that worked in the election last November, I wouldn't equate that with "doing a much better job" than your opponents.

Giving a strict legal definition to existing words is done all the time in legislation. Nothing new to see here. Get over it. My post was about how language is being used to lead the public's perception of the issue and about what is being proposed. More specifically how one side of the issue is doing a much better job at it. Yeah. Gun-grabbers and gun-o-phobes are good at that kind of stuff. After all, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. And as we know, if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. Or maybe, like with most issues, both sides do it with gusto. I'm not suggesting that both sides aren't involved in this, or that there isn't a reciprocal peppering of gusto, I'm saying one side is doing a much better job at it. This is evidenced by the near-universal use of the "banner" (and "ban-curious") preferred language, and the laughing off of all the tired NRA slogans.