SCOTUS Affirms 2nd Amendment

[Galvatron]

There is however a .375 magnum rifle cartridge.

Is it suitable for home-defense?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There is however a .375 magnum rifle cartridge.

Is it suitable for home-defense?

If you're defending your home against a SWAT team in body armour.

...Or Baldricks.

[Mr. Coffee]

There is however a .375 magnum rifle cartridge.

If you're talking rifles like the Marlin 1894, it's using the same .357 magnum cartridge used in pistols chambered for the same.

Is it suitable for home-defense?

I wouldn't use it for that. If you miss it'll go right through the thin sheet rock walls in my residences. That penetration is great for hunting though.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There is however a .375 magnum rifle cartridge.

If you're talking rifles like the Marlin 1894, it's using the same .357 magnum cartridge used in pistols chambered for the same.

Is it suitable for home-defense?

I wouldn't use it for that. If you miss it'll go right through the thin sheet rock walls in my residences. That penetration is great for hunting though.

No, I am referring to the .375 H&H magnum, considered the smallest acceptable cartridge to be packing when in situations where you may encounter extremely dangerous game.

[Mr. Coffee]

No, I am referring to the .375 H&H magnum, considered the smallest acceptable cartridge to be packing when in situations where you may encounter extremely dangerous game.

There I go being dyslexic again.

[Darth Wong]

Glocksman is of course right, one can make all kinds of ethical arguments why the right to abortion could be incorporated in the backdoor through some "suggested" right to privacy through due process clauses and constitutional case law and what have you, and that's better than the Second Amendment incorporating the individual right to bear arms. However, as a matter of law and "reading into the document," I have to admit that if anything Roe is much more of a stretch than this, and one cannot consistently oppose this ruling on the basis of originalism or originalistic arguments and simultaneously intellectually honestly support Roe.

This is what I don't like about the American legal system. Everyone has to find a constitutional justification for everything, no matter how tenuous. So much legal discussion in America revolves around semantic interpretation of little pieces of that single accursed document, as if we can't just say "Hey, maybe the fucking Founders never thought of abortion, because the technology didn't exist in their day, so it's idiotic to ask what insights the Constitution gives us into the subject". Similarly, it strikes me as idiotic to continually debate what the Second Amendment says about gun rights in the modern age, because the people who wrote had no idea what conditions would be like two hundred years later. The country is no longer primarily defended by citizen militias; the entire written justification for that amendment falls apart, and it clearly needs updating. But it's a goddamned sacred cow, and nobody will touch it.

[Coyote]

This is what I don't like about the American legal system. Everyone has to find a constitutional justification for everything, no matter how tenuous. So much legal discussion in America revolves around semantic interpretation of little pieces of that single accursed document, as if we can't just say "Hey, maybe the fucking Founders never thought of abortion, because the technology didn't exist in their day, so it's idiotic to ask what insights the Constitution gives us into the subject". Similarly, it strikes me as idiotic to continually debate what the Second Amendment says about gun rights in the modern age, because the people who wrote had no idea what conditions would be like two hundred years later. The country is no longer primarily defended by citizen militias; the entire written justification for that amendment falls apart, and it clearly needs updating. But it's a goddamned sacred cow, and nobody will touch it.

But it is the document that lays out the legal rights, freedoms, restrictions and duties of government and the people being governed-- you don't just change such a thing lightly, or due to a sudden inconvenience. That's why there are interpretations such as the recent SCOTUS ruling that clarified that "gun ownership is a right guaranteed to individuals, however, that does not mean that certain restrictions cannot be applied".

The argument that "the people who wrote it had no idea about conditions 200 years later" could also be applied, for example, to restricting free speech on TV, radio, and Internet, because the drafters of the Constitution had no way to comprehend such technologies. That would be a literal and even application of the same principle. But it is interpreted and applied to modern realities.

Also, bear in mind that it is adherence to Constitutional ideals that has led the reversal of some of the Bush Admin's abuses; true in an ideal world they never would have taken place to begin with. But the 'historical legitimacy' of the Constitution provides an anchor point for stated ideals and values that can be used to measure the current state of American political affairs-- in recent times, to see how far Bush has strayed from those ideals and values. If anything, there should be a little more adherence to the stated values of that "accursed document".

[Darth Wong]

But it is the document that lays out the legal rights, freedoms, restrictions and duties of government and the people being governed-- you don't justy change such a thing lightly, or due to a sudden inconvenience.

And what makes you think that the issues of abortion or guns are issues you would describe "lightly" or as a "sudden inconvenience"?

The argument that "the people who wrote it had no idea about conditions 200 years later" could also be applied, for example, to restricting free speech on TV, radio, and Internet, because the drafters of the Constitution had no way to comprehend such technologies. That would be a literal and even application of the same principle. But it is interpreted and applied to modern realities.

Yes it would, which in turn means that even those concepts could be subject to review. It doesn't mean they would necessarily be thrown away. It just means that they should not be treated as sacred cows and beyond any kind of review, which is the way they're treated. NOTHING should be considered sacred.

Also, bear in mind that it is adherence to Constitutional ideals that has led the reversal of some of the Bush Admin's abuses

So? I never said that the entire constitution should be thrown out. I just said that no part of it should be considered sacred and immune to review or updating.

[Death from the Sea]

So? I never said that the entire constitution should be thrown out. I just said that no part of it should be considered sacred and immune to review or updating.

I believe the line of reasoning there is if you can alter one section then why not others? and then that leads to changing the whole thing....kind of a slippery slope thing.

[Darth Wong]

So? I never said that the entire constitution should be thrown out. I just said that no part of it should be considered sacred and immune to review or updating.

I believe the line of reasoning there is if you can alter one section then why not others? and then that leads to changing the whole thing....kind of a slippery slope thing.

The slippery slope is a fallacy, which you are using to support another fallacy: the black/white fallacy. The idea that we need to treat the document as sacred for fear that the slightest change will touch off an unstoppable collapse is exactly the kind of reactionary fearmongering that I'm talking about. It only seems reasonable to you because of your brainwashing.

[Galvatron]

Yes it would, which in turn means that even those concepts could be subject to review. It doesn't mean they would necessarily be thrown away. It just means that they should not be treated as sacred cows and beyond any kind of review, which is the way they're treated. NOTHING should be considered sacred.

I agree with this. The militia bullshit should be dropped and replaced with a clearly worded statement that self-defense is an inalienable human right and the primary justification for personal firearm ownership.

[Broomstick]

"Hey, maybe the fucking Founders never thought of abortion, because the technology didn't exist in their day, so it's idiotic to ask what insights the Constitution gives us into the subject".

Actually, there was abortion "technology" available in Colonial times, mostly of a pharmaceutical nature. Not particularly popular, as it posed considerable risk to the woman, but apparently it was used at times. Most recently in 1992, if I recall correctly - something about Congressional payraises.

The country is no longer primarily defended by citizen militias; the entire written justification for that amendment falls apart, and it clearly needs updating. But it's a goddamned sacred cow, and nobody will touch it.

There is in fact a very clear system for changing/updating the constitution and it has been done successfully 27 times.

It's just friggin' hard to get the necessary ratification in 3/4 of state legislatures, is all....

[Darth Wong]

"Hey, maybe the fucking Founders never thought of abortion, because the technology didn't exist in their day, so it's idiotic to ask what insights the Constitution gives us into the subject".

Actually, there was abortion "technology" available in Colonial times, mostly of a pharmaceutical nature. Not particularly popular, as it posed considerable risk to the woman, but apparently it was used at times.

That's the point; abortion techniques back then were so primitive and dangerous that legal suppression of the "right" to use them would have been a non-issue. That has changed.

The country is no longer primarily defended by citizen militias; the entire written justification for that amendment falls apart, and it clearly needs updating. But it's a goddamned sacred cow, and nobody will touch it.

There is in fact a very clear system for changing/updating the constitution and it has been done successfully 27 times.

It's just friggin' hard to get the necessary ratification in 3/4 of state legislatures, is all....

I'm talking about the social attitude toward the Constitution rather than the existence of a formal legal mechanism for modifying it. Your country has developed a cult of Founder worship, particularly in the 20th century when the nation erected obscene monuments to national narcisissm, like Mount Rushmore. It is this cult which creates an atmosphere which is absurdly hostile to revision, regardless of whether the legal mechanism exists to do so.

[Coyote]

I see what you mean. It has taken on quasi-religious undertones. The basic ideals and principles of the Constitution are strong and will not collapse like a house of cards.

So far the Amendment process is pretty much all we have.

[SVPD]

Animal/Human, same difference. The hunting regulations for calibers/cartridges aren't used to define what is an isn't a "hunting rifle", it's used to maintain a minimum acceptable standard to kill a given game animal without causing unnecessary suffering.

I haven't contested this.

Has nothing to do with the type of stock, barrel, operating mechanism, or magazine capacity (you know, the things that are actually used to define "assault" weapons vs "sporting" weapons). It's all about telling hunters "this is the smallest cartidge you are allowed to use to kill X".

Haven't contested this either. Let me make this abundantly clear: I'm Not Talking About Legal Definitions Of Types Of Weapons. I'm talking about very general categories for discussion purposees.

My favorite framing hammer was designed to drive nails but it break up tile, drywall, and stone in a pinch. Just because it was designed with a "primary" purpose in mind doesn't mean it can't be used for other things.

This is precisely what I said. Thanks for repeating it over again in your own words.

Yeah, you could do it. You'd look like a complete retard, but you could do it. In anycase, thanks for proving my point about the user of the tool defining the tool's use.

You're welcome. I'm sorry that your reading comprehension is so damn poor you couldn't figure out that I was agreeing with it.

Mauser 98... Originally designed as a service rifle for the German army. Primary purpose was to kill people. Wouldn't you know it, turns out it makes a damned fine hunting rifle.

Very good. You've cleverly figured out that obsolete infantry rifles work well for hunting. So we can also classify, in a very general sense, most obsolete infantry rifles as hunting weapons since they have that as their main use now, while their original main use was infantry combat.

You're really doing a good job at pointing out the obvious.

Colt Python .375 magnum, designed as handgun meant to kill people. Turns out, it's a great pistol for short range hunting.

I wouldn't classify it as great, just adequate, but in any case, I'm still not sure where you get the idea that I disagree.

I'll repeat it since you're not getting it yet...

The person using the tool decides what the end use of the tool will be.

I'm dying to hear how you think I'm "not getting" a point of yours I agree with.

Wouldn't you know it, but concealability and all that are what I look for in a carry pistol. I'm a law abiding citizen. But yeah, let's restrict legal sales of firearms based on criminals do with them illegally. Cause that totally makes sense, yo.

I don't recall making any argument that law abiding citizens didn't look for concealability. I also don't recall making any argument that we ought to restrict handguns, or the sales thereof. Maybe you could point out where I've argued in support of that?

Oh, that's right, I didn't. My original point was that criminals are not looking primarily for power in a gan, but for other attributes. How you got out of this that I'm supporting handgun sales restrictions is utterly beyond me.

Ok, show me where it you're getting this "it's a popular gun with criminals" crap from.

How about from passing the Ohio Peace Officer Certification? Good enough for you?

How about the DOJ

What types of guns do criminals prefer?

Research by Wright and Rossi in the 1980's found that most criminals prefer guns that are easily concealable, large caliber, and well made. Their studies also found that the handguns used by the felons interviewed were similar to the handguns available to the general public except that the criminals preferred larger caliber guns.

While the .357 is not technically larger in caliber than the 9mm or .38, its greater power fulfills basically the same function, thereby being a perfect fit with the above characteristics. Furthermore, just a bit down from that it lists .357 magnum revolvers as the most-manufactured handgun (6.6 million) from 1976 to 1993. It exists in large quantities.

Define portability? Cause I distinctly remember the homeboys back in the day glorifying the fuck out of AKs and SKSs, which aren't all that concealable (except for in car), but sure as hell are portable. They also make great deer rifles too...

I remember the homeboys glorifying them a hell of a lot too. Whoop de do. Glorification isn't use, however.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm]g ... ence stats

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

hanguns are used 7 times more often than military style semiautomatics.

Furthermore, moron, an AK-47 isn't all that portable for homeboy because walking around with it attracts the attention of the police. Concealability directly affects portability.

I can name off a couple of few semiautomatic rifles that are "portable", easily concealed in a car or big coat, and cost less then most any .357 magnum pistol.

No, you can't. None of them are portable for purposes of the criminal because they attact attention. Furthermore, "easily concealable in a car or big coat" is fucking meaningless in this context because my whole point is that you don't need measures like a car or big coat, either or both of which might be unavailable or inappropriate to the situation, in order to conceal a handgun. I can "easily conceal" a Browning M2 .50 caliber machine gun in my trunk too, that doesn't make it "easily concealable".

Furthermore, your semiautomatic rifles are not easily concealable under a big coat. Just because you can do it doesn't mean it's easy, but they will definitely cause a person to change how they carry their body in an odd way.

I hunt with a couple of different weapons that have magazine capacities of 10 rounds or greater.

This has exactly what to do in showing whether or not criminals like bigger magazines? I never said anything about it being only criminals.

See, you missed the real key consideration for most criminals when it comes to obtaining a firearm. Availability

That would be under "low cost". My apologies if I didn't wrie it in big bright red letters for you.

Bullshit. I've taken deer with S&W 686 with a 6" barrel and it's concealable as all hell (can hide it under a t-shirt by tucking it in the waist of my pants if I wanted to). Those bigger hunting pistols, like the Taurus Raging Bull you mentioned, are that big because they fire ginormous rounds like .454 Casul (which isn't that hard to conceal either if you've got a coat on).

Bullshit how? None of this changes the fact that things like the .454 are unpopular criminal weapons. You cite a 6" .357 as easily concealable.. well, gee, I've been saying all along that .357s are popular criminal weapons because they are concealable! What the fuck are you so determined to argue with me for?

As for the .454 the fact that you have to wear a coat to effectively conceal it pretty much shows that it's not easily concealed since, you stupid fucker, there's this season called "summer" where coats are A) hot and B) attract the attention of cops when worn in summer.

Ok, do you have some sort of authoritive source for this "criminals love .375s" or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

See the first link, dumbass. They prefer large, easily concealed pistols.

And you based this on what? It works great on deer.

I base this on the fact that larger weapons, such as the .41 Magnum and .44 Magnum work better, and for a serious pistol hunter, the extra expense is worth it. The .357 works adequately, on deer, not great. Great implies superlative ability. Have you got any evidence that the .357 revolver is somehow superior for deer hunting? Or are you just overstating your case because... because...because you're an idiot and decided to start an argument over something I substantially agree with you on in the first place?

Oh... I see you went and looked at the wiki. I guess you missed the bit about Elmer Kieth, who applied what he knew about hunting animals to making a pistol cartridge that kills both game and people equally well.

I didn't. This has nothing to do with the fact that law enforcement/antipersonnel use was its primary purpose, and remains so. I haven't contested that you can hunt with it, and I don't now.

For the love of God and Sonny Jesus, just stop, SVPD.

Stop what? Stop agreeing with you? Am I stealing your glory in this thread or something?

You've gone out of your way to start a fucking argument with me over points about which we agree in the first place, apparently because you somehow lept to the conclusion that by pointint out that criminals prefer general-purpose handguns to weapons made primarily for hunting that somehow meant I favored restrictions on handgun sales. I haven't said shit one way or the other about restrictions.

Seriously, you fucking moron, what are you trying to argue? That any classification of firearms is impossible because any gun can theoretically be used for any purpose? What the fuck are you arguing? I'm not conceeding your points only because I, for the most part agree with them in the first place, and you seem bound and determined to find a reason to disagree. Did you get your ass kicked in some other thread and need a quick win to sace face or something?

What is your problem with identifying the fact that certain weapons have characteristics in their design that optimize them for some uses while making them less preferable than others, and identifying which characteristics match up with which use?

[Broomstick]

"Hey, maybe the fucking Founders never thought of abortion, because the technology didn't exist in their day, so it's idiotic to ask what insights the Constitution gives us into the subject".

Actually, there was abortion "technology" available in Colonial times, mostly of a pharmaceutical nature. Not particularly popular, as it posed considerable risk to the woman, but apparently it was used at times.

That's the point; abortion techniques back then were so primitive and dangerous that legal suppression of the "right" to use them would have been a non-issue. That has changed.

I disagree - outlawing abortion-causing pharmaceuticals could have been done (and was done in some areas) based on the danger to the mother.

Prior to Roe v. Wade the status of abortion was decided state by state - some states completely forbid it, others permitted it with little to no regulation, others occupied a middle ground. Women who could afford it routinely crossed state lines to obtain an abortion that was both safe and legal - it was the poor and the powerless that were left to the back-alley operators.

The country is no longer primarily defended by citizen militias; the entire written justification for that amendment falls apart, and it clearly needs updating. But it's a goddamned sacred cow, and nobody will touch it.

There is in fact a very clear system for changing/updating the constitution and it has been done successfully 27 times.

It's just friggin' hard to get the necessary ratification in 3/4 of state legislatures, is all....

I'm talking about the social attitude toward the Constitution rather than the existence of a formal legal mechanism for modifying it. Your country has developed a cult of Founder worship, particularly in the 20th century when the nation erected obscene monuments to national narcisissm, like Mount Rushmore. It is this cult which creates an atmosphere which is absurdly hostile to revision, regardless of whether the legal mechanism exists to do so.

Oh, that - yeah, there is Founding Father worship. It was in the background to a large degree until the "Reagan Revolution" of 1980 when the Republicans started sucking the Religious Right's dick and it got sickening.

[Lord Insanity]

In the U.S., the government is allegedly "of the people, for the people, and by the people." So wouldn't the government attempting to prevent the people from having arms be an oxymoron? That would fall under the category of "all power is inherent to the people." Of course that is making the naive assumption "the government" is actually following the same rules as "the people." That is how it's supposed to work. Everyone, including elected officials, is equal under the law. The real problem with the second amendment's applicability today, is that our government with regard to the military is not structured as it was intended. Switzerland is far closer to the model the U.S. was intended to be operating under. Originally the government could only wage war so long as they could rally the people (the militia) to the cause and form an army. The government was implicitly not allowed to maintain a standing army in peace time. Hence the line from Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: "[The Congress shall have Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" The second amendment really was meant to keep congress from deciding to not maintain and/or regulate the militia (as they have done) and therefore disbanding it by default. This of course was viewed as equivalent to removing the power from the people. I wonder how much less fucked up U.S. foreign policy would be if the government was forced to adhere to those original intentions.

[Mr. Coffee]

I haven't contested this.

Then why do you keep going on about "primary use" all the time?

Haven't contested this either. Let me make this abundantly clear: I'm Not Talking About Legal Definitions Of Types Of Weapons. I'm talking about very general categories for discussion purposees.

Dude, you're previous post you said "Yes, as a matter of fact it does. " when I was saying that hunting restrictions on cartridges/calibers beign what defines a "hunting" firearm.

This is precisely what I said. Thanks for repeating it over again in your own words.

Then what was you're fucking purpose for bringing it up? Seriously what the hell is with you and this "primary purpose is killing people" shit if you agree with me that it's not the tool it the user?

You're welcome. I'm sorry that your reading comprehension is so damn poor you couldn't figure out that I was agreeing with it.

Once again, how are you agreeing with me when you keep maintaining this "primary purpose" horseshit?

I wouldn't classify it as great, just adequate, but in any case, I'm still not sure where you get the idea that I disagree.

Because you keep going on about how criminals love .357s so much, implying that you think .357s must be used for crime or killing people.

I don't recall making any argument that law abiding citizens didn't look for concealability. I also don't recall making any argument that we ought to restrict handguns, or the sales thereof. Maybe you could point out where I've argued in support of that?

Then what in the fucking hell was your point with the whole ".357s are the criminal's tool of choice" shit or going on about concealability ect. if you're not trying to say that handguns are bad because criminals like them so much?

Oh, that's right, I didn't. My original point was that criminals are not looking primarily for power in a gan, but for other attributes. How you got out of this that I'm supporting handgun sales restrictions is utterly beyond me.

How about from passing the Ohio Peace Officer Certification? Good enough for you?

Dude, I wouldn't give a shit if you were John "Yippie Kiya Motherfucker" McClane himself. You keep saying one thing and then pop back with "oh, what I really meant was" or "but I was really agreeing with you".

How about the DOJ

What types of guns do criminals prefer?

Research by Wright and Rossi in the 1980's found that most criminals prefer guns that are easily concealable, large caliber, and well made. Their studies also found that the handguns used by the felons interviewed were similar to the handguns available to the general public except that the criminals preferred larger caliber guns.

Did you even read that damned report? It says all over the place that they prefere .38s over .357s. .38s get used in the commission of a crime more then .357s. Seems to me they seem to prefer .38s.

While the .357 is not technically larger in caliber than the 9mm or .38, its greater power fulfills basically the same function, thereby being a perfect fit with the above characteristics. Furthermore, just a bit down from that it lists .357 magnum revolvers as the most-manufactured handgun (6.6 million) from 1976 to 1993. It exists in large quantities.

And the same report says what gets used most often? .38s and not .357s like you've been maintaining.

I remember the homeboys glorifying them a hell of a lot too. Whoop de do. Glorification isn't use, however.

Thanks for not defining "portability".

hanguns are used 7 times more often than military style semiautomatics.

I never said they wouldn't be, ass. I asked you to define what the hell you mean by "portable".

Furthermore, moron, an AK-47 isn't all that portable for homeboy because walking around with it attracts the attention of the police. Concealability directly affects portability.

So by "portable" you mean "concealable". Also notice you ignored where I said you can hide an AK in a car, which isn't 'walking around", dumbass.

No, you can't. None of them are portable for purposes of the criminal because they attact attention. Furthermore, "easily concealable in a car or big coat" is fucking meaningless in this context because my whole point is that you don't need measures like a car or big coat, either or both of which might be unavailable or inappropriate to the situation, in order to conceal a handgun.

Now you want to move the fucking goal posts around...

So in Ohio they never have cold weather so people never wear coats, and they must not have cars either since you seem to think criminals never hide shit there either.

I can "easily conceal" a Browning M2 .50 caliber machine gun in my trunk too, that doesn't make it "easily concealable".

Yeah, because an AK/SKS/Mini-14 that you can set down on the floorboard where all you have to do to use it is pick the damned thing upis the same as HMG in the trunk, *I'm a smarmy asshole*.

Furthermore, your semiautomatic rifles are not easily concealable under a big coat. Just because you can do it doesn't mean it's easy, but they will definitely cause a person to change how they carry their body in an odd way.

If I can do it anyone can do it.

This has exactly what to do in showing whether or not criminals like bigger magazines? I never said anything about it being only criminals.

Then what's your fucking point with "criminals like X"? Hey, law abiding citizens like that shit too. Why bring "criminals like it" into the discussion unless your trying to say "these things that criminals like should be criteria for restricting access to firearms with these qualities"?

That would be under "low cost". My apologies if I didn't wrie it in big bright red letters for you.

Because low cost and availability aren't always the same thing, jackass.

Bullshit how? None of this changes the fact that things like the .454 are unpopular criminal weapons. You cite a 6" .357 as easily concealable.. well, gee, I've been saying all along that .357s are popular criminal weapons because they are concealable! What the fuck are you so determined to argue with me for?

Because you keep going on about how it's supposedly a miracle criminal weapon and playing off all fucking "hunting" firearms as being enormous, when a lot of the time they really aren't unless you get into absurdly overpowered shit like .454 or .500 S&W Magnum.

As for the .454 the fact that you have to wear a coat to effectively conceal it pretty much shows that it's not easily concealed since, you stupid fucker, there's this season called "summer" where coats are A) hot and B) attract the attention of cops when worn in summer.

So I guess they cancelled winter in Ohio, huh? You remember winter... That time of year when it's cold and people wear COATS?

See the first link, dumbass. They prefer large, easily concealed pistols.

You mean the same one that also says they use smaller, more easilly concealed, medium or small caliber weapons more? You do know that they might prefere one but actually end up using another, right?

I base this on the fact that larger weapons, such as the .41 Magnum and .44 Magnum work better, and for a serious pistol hunter, the extra expense is worth it. The .357 works adequately, on deer, not great. Great implies superlative ability. Have you got any evidence that the .357 revolver is somehow superior for deer hunting?

From using them on deer. Against the scrubby little deer we have down here, they work perfectly for shots below 50 yards. Never said there weren't better cartridges, dumbass, I said .357 works just fine.

Or are you just overstating your case because... because...because you're an idiot and decided to start an argument over something I substantially agree with you on in the first place?

If you agree with me then why the fuck do you keep rambling on about criminals and .357s?

Seriously, you fucking moron, what are you trying to argue? That any classification of firearms is impossible because any gun can theoretically be used for any purpose? What the fuck are you arguing? I'm not conceeding your points only because I, for the most part agree with them in the first place, and you seem bound and determined to find a reason to disagree. Did you get your ass kicked in some other thread and need a quick win to sace face or something?

If you agree with me then why do you keep going on about "purpose built" this and "criminals love it"? If I misread you, hey, my bad...

But then why the fuck are you making a case "this kind of gun/cartridge is bad, m'kay"?

What is your problem with identifying the fact that certain weapons have characteristics in their design that optimize them for some uses while making them less preferable than others, and identifying which characteristics match up with which use?

Because in a lot of cases, optimizing something for one thing makes it work great for a whole shitload of other things. What makes a weapon an 'assault" rifle also seems to make it work great as a target or even hunting rifle.

[SVPD]

I'm going to reply to this, and this only:

But then why the fuck are you making a case "this kind of gun/cartridge is bad, m'kay"?

I AM NOT MAKING A CASE THAT ANY GUN OR CARTRIDGE IS BAD. I have not said anything to even imply that ANYWHERE in this thread. I am utterly baffeled as to where you are getting thid.

I was originally trying to point out, and still am, that criminals do not go primarily for firepower, but for other characterisitcs: concealability, availability, ease of use, and a few others.

I'm also pointing out that weapons that have high firepower as their main attribue, which ALSO tend to be designed and used PRIMARILY< BUT NOT NECESSARILY EXCLUSIVLEY for hunting DO NOT fit the typical criminal need. Other weapons do, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY MIGHT ALSO HAVE OTHER LEGITAMITE USES, possibly including hunting.

Are you getting this? I'm trying to dispell a myth regarding high-firepower weapons including both "assault weapons" and "hunting weapons".

Stop reading things into my fucking position.

[SVPD]

I'm going to reply to this, and this only:

But then why the fuck are you making a case "this kind of gun/cartridge is bad, m'kay"?

I AM NOT MAKING A CASE THAT ANY GUN OR CARTRIDGE IS BAD. I have not said anything to even imply that ANYWHERE in this thread. I am utterly baffeled as to where you are getting thid.

I was originally trying to point out, and still am, that criminals do not go primarily for firepower, but for other characterisitcs: concealability, availability, ease of use, and a few others.

I'm also pointing out that weapons that have high firepower as their main attribue, which ALSO tend to be designed and used PRIMARILY< BUT NOT NECESSARILY EXCLUSIVLEY for hunting DO NOT fit the typical criminal need. Other weapons do, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY MIGHT ALSO HAVE OTHER LEGITAMITE USES, possibly including hunting.

Are you getting this? I'm trying to dispell a myth regarding high-firepower weapons including both "assault weapons" and "hunting weapons". Those, since you are massively comprehension-impaired, are broad categories, and even have significant overlap. I've never said a weapon can't fit into more than one category; a hunting weapon can be an assault weapon as well, and vice versa.

Stop reading things into my fucking position.

[Coyote]

...The real problem with the second amendment's applicability today, is that our government with regard to the military is not structured as it was intended. Switzerland is far closer to the model the U.S. was intended to be operating under. Originally the government could only wage war so long as they could rally the people (the militia) to the cause and form an army. The government was implicitly not allowed to maintain a standing army in peace time. Hence the line from Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: "[The Congress shall have Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" The second amendment really was meant to keep congress from deciding to not maintain and/or regulate the militia (as they have done) and therefore disbanding it by default. This of course was viewed as equivalent to removing the power from the people. I wonder how much less fucked up U.S. foreign policy would be if the government was forced to adhere to those original intentions.

We can thank the War of 1812 for that. During the Revolution of 1776 we found that militias were not that great, they tended to evaporate when it was planting & harvest time back home since their first priority was their farms & families-- big surprise. This put them at a serious disadvantage to standing armies such as England's, which existed for nothing else but to make war at their convenience.

We raised as small standing Federal army to serve as a sort of 'central cadre' around which the Militia would rally, but it very quickly became obvious to the government that the small Federal Army was the only combat group the government could count on to be there when needed.

Concerns about this faded after the Revolution, but in the War of 1812, things became painful to watch as Militi units were rallied to go invade Canada and they stopped at the border, refusing to go any further because they signed on to the state militias to defend their homes, not ransack someone else's home. So a lot of the talk about the dangers of standing armies and the reliance on the Militia became just that-- talk. The US government expanded the regular army so they'd have a hammer to use when the time came.

The problem today with implementing the way the Swiss militia system in America is that European countries in general seem to have a more 'community-oriented' outlook about society. In the US, we've had an 'individualistic/me first' outlook of "rugged independence". "Why should I take my time to go to a Militia practice this weekend? What does it get me? A warm fuzzy for upholding the community? Fuck that."

That's why I, personally, think that we have so many problems with this stuff. You're expected to look out for number one, take care of yourself, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and fuck the rest if they can't keep up. It's reflected in the government's refusal to help provide a safety net for the poor, IMO.

[Darth Wong]

The problem today with implementing the way the Swiss militia system in America is that European countries in general seem to have a more 'community-oriented' outlook about society. In the US, we've had an 'individualistic/me first' outlook of "rugged independence". "Why should I take my time to go to a Militia practice this weekend? What does it get me? A warm fuzzy for upholding the community? Fuck that."

That's why I, personally, think that we have so many problems with this stuff. You're expected to look out for number one, take care of yourself, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and fuck the rest if they can't keep up. It's reflected in the government's refusal to help provide a safety net for the poor, IMO.

If that "rugged individualism" bullshit is still true, then why do you worship militarism so much, even though joining the Army is the ultimate form of collectivism?

The reason you have these attitudes has nothing to do with "rugged individualism" or even "self-sufficiency"; not in the land of farm subsidies and corporate handouts. It's a crude morality play, where people must prove themselves to be on the "good" side before they get help.

[Coyote]

If that "rugged individualism" bullshit is still true, then why do you worship militarism so much, even though joining the Army is the ultimate form of collectivism?

The reason you have these attitudes has nothing to do with "rugged individualism" or even "self-sufficiency"; not in the land of farm subsidies and corporate handouts. It's a crude morality play, where people must prove themselves to be on the "good" side before they get help.

Because overall, I admit as a society we are willingly delusional. The same government that hands out farm subsidies and bails out corporations is the same government that refuses to make basic medecine available to the poor-- and we don't question it.

You listen to American socio-political rhetoric; you know what I mean. All our rhetoric is praise for a nation of rugged individualists and similar blah, blah, blah. When it comes time to help communities, they fob it off on churches or volunteers; and yet, yes, we rate "service to country" (meaning the military) as a high virtue. It's doublespeak, but most of Americans yuk it up. I have neither explanation nor excuse.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As far as the military worship is concerned, if you look you find the same sort of rhetoric.

While the people in the military have their personalities altered by some rather interesting (and effective) brainwashing techniques, to the point that they become community-centered (their unit at least...) the people back home are each referring to their own individual friend or relative as a hero. He (or she) is the rugged individualist, the Randian Ideal (fuck her in the ear) that they idolize.

The government does not necessarily have to fall into this little schtick. Most politicians have rejected the values common to the population and instead manipulate them. We dont see the "rugged individualist) rhetoric with farm subsidies because no one cares. Politicians are paid to keep the subsidies flowing, so they never turn the rhetoric on them. The insurance companies however pay them to ply their craft...

[Darth Wong]

As far as the military worship is concerned, if you look you find the same sort of rhetoric.

While the people in the military have their personalities altered by some rather interesting (and effective) brainwashing techniques, to the point that they become community-centered (their unit at least...) the people back home are each referring to their own individual friend or relative as a hero. He (or she) is the rugged individualist, the Randian Ideal (fuck her in the ear) that they idolize.

No they don't. It's all about SERVING your country. Join the SERVICE. OBEY the chain of command. Become part of "something greater than yourself". Do your DUTY. That is not individualist rhetoric; it is collectivist rhetoric, on a high level. The western way of war has been based on collectivist thinking since the time of the Greek phalanx.

Collectivist rhetoric works wonderfully when it is applied to the military in America, but is rejected everywhere else.