I had it pointed out to me

[Stella_Omega]

Cheesus Keeriste Harold, you are weird.

 

[Weird Harold]

Cheesus Keeriste Harold, you are weird.

And your point is?

 

[njlauren]

Why does only the second amendment require a test of NEED?

If I meet all of the prerequisites under the Firearms Act of 1939, I can own any sort of fully automatic firearm ever made, and I can fire that weapon any time I like; without having to justify any sort of "need." Very few of the people who meet those stringent prerequisites "need" fully-automatic firearms, but none of those people have gone berserk and killed 20 or 30 people just because they could.

I don't have to prove a "need" to buy chlorine bleach and ammonia. Carelessness with those two common household presents more of a danger to you and the general public than a law-abiding gun owner with one of every semi-automatic rifle ever made.

Why are you so much more afraid of the fact I own guns than you are about my ability to buy a fast car and a keg of beer without any test of "need."

I understand that you're afraid of guns, but you have little to fear from law-abiding gun owners. You want to ban and buy back every possible firearm because YOU have no need for one. If you and others in this thread, two of the four guns I own would become illegal; the two that wouldn't become illegal are by far the more "dangerous" guns.

You answered your own question. People can buy chlorine bleach and ammonia because they are commonly used to clean households, they have use, and it is easy to demonstrate need even those are dangerous chemicals in the wrong hands, likewise you can buy muriatic acid to use in cleaning stone. The need (the cleaning action) outweighs the danger of the chemical, and the right to own it stands.

Need and legitimate use come into play all the time, and others are right, you might think a stinger missile is cool or a homing torpedo or a blackhawk helicopter, but that doesn't give you the right to own them because you have no demonstrated need for them. Sorry, but saying "I am a collector who loves them" doesn't matter, aviation nuts love jet fighter aircraft but they cannot legally buy surplus US F15's and such.

The basic right of our constitution is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the bill of rights is expressing the idea you have the right to do as you wish...but once that runs into other rights, especially of the public good and safety, all rights have burdens. You can argue that you have the right to yell fire in a movie theater, but unless there is really a fire (and hence the need to say it), you will be arrested. A gun enthusiast who says he loves WWII machine guns won't be allowed to own them based on that need, unless he agrees to make it inoperable. Guy one year showed up as the Oshkosh fly in with a restored German ME 109, complete with active machine guns, and the FAA made him make them inoperable, even though I am sure he loved the idea of having it 'authentic'.

Want a basic definition of a right? It says you have the right of doing what you want, when you want it, and you don't have to prove a need to maintain that right (it is why for example same sex marriage proponents don't have to prove a need or benefit to it, rather those opposed have to prove why it shouldn't exist). Where need comes into play is when there is strong evidence that public good is involved, especially public safety and there need comes into play. Let's play this out in terms of the second amendment.

Guns pose a clear public threat, there are all kinds of safety issues with them, that they can be used in criminal acts, accidental shootings, domestic disputes, you name it, so there is a burden upon the right, it isn't unfettered and never has been.

Okay, so let's look at handguns. When arguments are made in court (like the DC ban), one of the things that comes up is the need to be able to defend oneself, and in the DC case it was cited in overturning the ban. However, they also said that restrictions on carrying were legal, that whatever need of self defense was outweighed by the dangers of allowing a lot of people to carry, and that part was left legal.

Hunters argue that rifles and shotgun are part of what they do, and not all hunters are sports hunters, many do it to feed their families. The need in that case, the desire to hunt or need to hunt, outweighs the risks of allowing people to use these weapons (hunting rifles aren't particularly good in a stick up, and shotguns are too bulky, plus neither can be concealed easily if in their full form) so they are allowed.

Okay, so semi automatic rapid fire rifles.......they pose a major safety risk, they can kill a lot of people, which is outweighed by what.........the need. Where is the need? If it is simple vanity, cause I like the way it looks or I like to impress dim witted men who think Budweiser is fine beer and the NY Jets are a football team for real, that need/desire is way, way outweighed by the threat these weapons pose to public safety.

Rights always have burdens on them, and need is one weight to weigh out whether a restriction is legitimate or not. You are saying if a gun exists, I have the right to own it and it doesn't matter what I need it for, and that isn't true; if a gun were something like a toy, then you would be correct, or a pair of 5" heels (which Stella would probably say should be banned *lol*), but when there are serious issues of the rights of others to be safe, then need is factored into whether a right if allowed or not. If you go into a park and stand on a packing crate and yell political invective (UK folks, do people still do that in Hyde Park?), if that is your need, then it is fine; but if your invective is calling for people to kill President Obama or Mark Sanchez of the New York Jets, whatever your need for saying it, it is outweighed by the threat such speech implies.

 

[sr71plt]

And your point is?

My guess is that she's saying you are totally antisocial and disgusting--another cold-blooded nut who shouldn't be permitted to have a gun and in dire need of an attitude readjustment.

But that's just a guess.

 

[njlauren]

Cyclic rate -- the minimum time between firings -- doesn't mean much without magazine capacity to feed it. It therefore doesn't matter a great deal what kind of action any given firearm might have. The difference between a pump and an auto-loader is negligible when both are limited to a plugged magazine and three rounds (plus one in the chamber.)

Eliminating removable magazines completely has the unintended consequence of making it more difficult to unload a weapon so that a weapon remains loaded more often. They can, of course, be done away with, although simply making it so that it takes two hands to change a magazine would probably be a better solution.

A bolt action hunting rifle is an "offensive weapon" if it is used offensively. One of the two hunting rifles I own is the same make and model the US Army and US marines issue to their sniper teams. One of the first -- or at least most notorius -- mass shootings in the US was a bolt action hunting rifle used as a sniper rifle from a Texas clock tower. I don't recall the final total, but "rate of fire" had nothing to do with that case.

The more recent "Washington DC Sniper" case involved the same .223 Bushmaster rifle, but again, rate of fire had nothing to do with the lethality of those attacks.

IMHO, Rate of Fire is a red herring or scare tactic. What killed 26 of 27 people in Newtown wasn't rate of fire, it was magazine capacity. Without multiple 30-round magazines and/or the ability to reload 30 rounds at a time, there may well have been fewer deaths. The shooter had the choice of several weapons that could have delivered similar rates of fire, but he chose the option with the highest capacity and/or fastest reload.

Rate of fire plays a role as well (though the capacity had something to do with it), a relatively slow firing weapon gives a victim a chance to get away, whereas a gun with a 10 bullet magazine that goes 'pop-pop-pop-pop' in a couple of seconds is going to do more damage then a slow firing weapon.

Lee Harvey Oswald used a bolt action rifle as did the guy in the Texas tower incident (Whitman I think was his name), but remember, they are acting as snipers. If Oswald had that bolt action rifle in the school in question, a teacher could have taken a fire extinguisher and shot him in the face while he tried to reload (which comes back to the reload factor). The rapid fire in a crowded area, like a movie theater, means killing more people in a given time. Whitman killed a lot of people but did so relatively slowly, Oswald was after one man. But if I am in a movie theater with a springfield 03 bolt action rifle, I am not going to kill a lot of people, if I have an AR15, even with a 10 shot magazine, I can kill a lot more people.

My problem with limiting the magazines is how easy that can be bypassed, magazines are simple beasts and it would be pretty easy to order illegal magazines from uzbekistan over the net, lot harder to track; lot easier to stop the manufacture of the guns themselves.

 

[njlauren]

Harold-
Because of the relative difficulty of going through the background check required, the license and the reporting requirements, automatic weapons are very uncommon, you can't buy them at WalMart or bill joe's gun shop in Metraxis, Virginia the way you can 'regular' weapons. People who have those kind of licenses tend to be guys like the people on the show "sons of guns' or whatever it is called, it is very limited. If we wanted to put the same requirements on semi automatic "assault' weapons, then so be it, it would do what I want, keep them out of the hands of casual idiots like Nancy Lanza.

I am not in favor of banning most weapons and if restrictions on magazine size and easy of changing would help, that is great. What I am in favor of is amending the law to make gun ownership a serious thing, to enforce accountability we already do with things like cars, it is astounding to me you have to take road test to get s license, you have to have insurance on a car and can have the right revoked, and we have states where you can buy a gun without any kind of training, any kind of proof you know how to handle and store them, and with no liability if they end up being used in a crime, that is ridiculous, or where the background check is a joke. Letting virginia or georgia sell guns like they are nails is a travesty that benefits the gun store owners and those who skirt the law selling into the black market, but also has others pay a terrible price for it.

 

[sr71plt]

Geez. I just discovered that Weird_Harold is just another one of those discussion board parasitic gadflies who has nothing to do with this Web site's world. One "story" (and that a technical "how to") posted 10 years ago. What is it with these drones taking up breathing space on an erotica site?

(Guess maybe I should check his sidekick, Hairy_Legs)

Yep, good old Harry has just been a parasite here too for seven years. What a pathetic life these kind of guys must have--living vicariously on discussion boards of Web sites totally unrelated to their creative life (if they have one).

 

[Bramblethorn]

A bolt action hunting rifle is an "offensive weapon" if it is used offensively. One of the two hunting rifles I own is the same make and model the US Army and US marines issue to their sniper teams. One of the first -- or at least most notorius -- mass shootings in the US was a bolt action hunting rifle used as a sniper rifle from a Texas clock tower. I don't recall the final total, but "rate of fire" had nothing to do with that case.

Incorrect.

The shooter in that case was indeed armed with a bolt-action hunting rifle. He was also carrying half a dozen other guns, including a semi-automatic M1 rifle and a semi-auto 12-gauge shotgun. I don't know if he used the M1 at all, but he certainly used the shotgun before he started sniping:

As 16-year-old Mark Gabour and his 18-year-old brother Mike tried to look beyond the barricade and open the door, [the shooter] fired his shotgun at them, instantly killing Mark with shots to the head and neck. He shot Mike in the head, shoulder and left leg, knocking him unconscious. Both brothers fell down the staircase in front of their family. [The shooter] fired the sawed-off shotgun three more times through grates, hitting and wounding Mary Gabour in the head and killing 56-year-old Marguerite Lamport with a shot to the chest. - Wikipedia

I make that around seven shots in rapid succession, killing two people and wounding two more. You think rate of fire just might have made a difference to those people?

In any case, snipers are a distraction; the great majority of spree shooters prefer to do their shooting at closer range. Certainly in Australia we haven't seen a rash of sniper attacks to replace the guys who used to conduct their rampages with pump shotguns and semi-auto rifles.

IMHO, Rate of Fire is a red herring or scare tactic. What killed 26 of 27 people in Newtown wasn't rate of fire, it was magazine capacity. Without multiple 30-round magazines and/or the ability to reload 30 rounds at a time, there may well have been fewer deaths. The shooter had the choice of several weapons that could have delivered similar rates of fire, but he chose the option with the highest capacity and/or fastest reload.

You seem to be suggesting that because magazine capacity is important, rate of fire doesn't matter. I accept the former claim but I don't see the logic that leads you to the latter.

How far can you run in the time it takes to fire five rounds from a bolt-action rifle?

How far can you run in the time it takes to fire five rounds from a semi-auto?

Hell, suppose you're the mythical concealed-carry hero who has the presence of mind to take down that bad guy after he opens fire. How many shots can he get off in the time it takes you to orient, draw, aim, and shoot him?

 

[PennLady]

I understand that you're afraid of guns, but you have little to fear from law-abiding gun owners. You want to ban and buy back every possible firearm because YOU have no need for one. If you and others in this thread, two of the four guns I own would become illegal; the two that wouldn't become illegal are by far the more "dangerous" guns.

I am not afraid of guns. I am afraid of what people can do with them, and that has been demonstrated over and over again. Apparently Nancy Lanza was a law-abiding gun owner, yet her weapons were used in a horrible killing. So why should I trust that it should be different for you or any other law-abiding gun owners?

I would like to see restrictions and buy-backs because they have been used in other countries and they have reduced the number of shooting deaths in those countries. And I still don't believe that a right to a gun for self-protection equates to the need for a weapon like the Bushmaster.

But we're obviously talking past each other, which is unfortunate. I'm ready to agree or concede or whatever that you have a right to a gun. You are not ready to agree that there should be a limit on what type of gun. And there we sit.

ETA: I also believe that rate-of-fire is important. Here's an article about it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...town_a_warning_of_worse_school_shootings.html

 

[mikey2much]

the issue is trust

The people who want the automatic weapons and the armor piercing rounds, are afraid of the government. They are picturing themselves in a pitched battle with the forces of government, and they want to be armed as well as the enemy.

I don't trust the government, do you? If you trust the government than you don't need a gun. When you feel threatened, use your cell phone and call a cop. While you're waiting for them to come to your rescue, you should clean you car or house of anything that might bee illegal.

I would have more trust in Harold having a gun than I do in the cops being the only ones with guns. I think that Rodney King needed a gun. I have had the law show me what they are when they hold all the power.

As far as trusting the government, the american public has paid into SS since before the end of WW2. All that surplus was spent by the government even though they were not allowed to touch it. They stole that money and now they are saying that the SS plan won't work. It won't work because we can't trust the government.

I don't trust the government, and I don't have a gun. I don't think I could win an arms race with the cops, and I know they are willing killers where I am not. But I take a certain amount of comfort in knowing that there are groups out there that are well armed and ready to resist the government. They might give us enough time to get armed and be able to resist.

You guys who want to disarm people of the only weapons that could stand up against the cops. This might be something that we don't want, but by the time we understand what we have done, it will be too late.

 

[Weird Harold]

Rate of fire plays a role as well (though the capacity had something to do with it), a relatively slow firing weapon gives a victim a chance to get away, whereas a gun with a 10 bullet magazine that goes 'pop-pop-pop-pop' in a couple of seconds is going to do more damage then a slow firing weapon.

You are the one who "defined" rapid-fire as 60 rounds a minute. That rate of fire is easily achievable with a bolt-action, magazine-fed hunting rifle.

Yes, a limit on magazine capacity -- not just on new manufacture, but on the USE of unplugged magazines -- can be bypassed. Historically so has any ban on "Assault Weapons."

However, getting an effective ban on "assault weapons" or "semi-automatic weapons" is far more difficult than getting a simple "Thou shalt not have more than three rounds in a shotgun magazine, five rounds in a rifle magazine, or ten rounds in a pistol magazine" passed. An exemption could be added for practice or competition at an facility under the supervision of a certified range-master or instructor, but that's not really necessary.

Which would you rather have passed? Another cosmetic "Assault Weapons Ban" that only covers the manufacture of new weapons? Or an effective restriction (with teeth) banning the USE of a magazine's full capacity -- a rule applicable to the millions of magazines already in private hands?

It is all well and good to work for whatever level of gun control you feel comfortable with, but you're looking at a long, hard, fight that might result in half-hearted legislation some time in the future.

OR

You can ask your Congress Critters to get behind regulations requiring plugs in magazines (whether removable or fixed) and actually accomplish something in the next 90 days or so.

 

[Weird Harold]

But we're obviously talking past each other, which is unfortunate. I'm ready to agree or concede or whatever that you have a right to a gun. You are not ready to agree that there should be a limit on what type of gun. And there we sit.

I don't disagree that there should be a limit on what type of gun, I just haven't seen any rational definition of what guns should be banned. I can see a rational, simple definition to limit the number of rounds available that I think could become the law of the land in 90 days or so, certainly less than a year, and would prefer to get that accomplished first.

ETA: I also believe that rate-of-fire is important. Here's an article about it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...town_a_warning_of_worse_school_shootings.html

Let’s say Lanza fired 200 rounds. That’s 20 per minute, or one every three seconds. And that’s not accounting for the time he spent moving from room to room.

That rate of fire is extremely slow; with a bit of practice, it might even be possible to fire that fast with a single-shot, bolt-action. it is certainly well within the capability of any magazine fed weapon. (counting a revolver's cylinder as a magazine.)

The point about rate-of-fire is that without ammunition it is meaningless. If you only have five rounds in your rifle, it doesn't matter how quickly you fire those rounds, you're only out of ammunition faster if you use the maximum rate-of-fire.

 

[Weird Harold]

Geez. I just discovered that Weird_Harold is just another one of those discussion board parasitic gadflies who has nothing to do with this Web site's world.

That's because you don't pay attention: I don't post stories as "Weird Harold" It's fairly easy to find what name I do post under because I've posted a link to my best story in a dozen different threads.

And, no, I haven't posted anything newer than the essay I posted as "Weird Harold," but then I've never been as prolific as other authors.

 

[PennLady]

That rate of fire is extremely slow; with a bit of practice, it might even be possible to fire that fast with a single-shot, bolt-action. it is certainly well within the capability of any magazine fed weapon. (counting a revolver's cylinder as a magazine.)

But he likely was not continually firing -- this is just an average. There had to be minutes where he was not firing -- such as when he came through the window, and if there was no one in front of him -- which means that the firing was more bunched up. So he was doing more than 1 shot per 3 seconds, at least at times.

 

[Weird Harold]

But he likely was not continually firing -- this is just an average. There had to be minutes where he was not firing -- such as when he came through the window, and if there was no one in front of him -- which means that the firing was more bunched up. So he was doing more than 1 shot per 3 seconds, at least at times.

You're missing the point that the rate-of-fire capability of the weapon used was NOT used at anything near top capacity. (an AR derivative has a typical cyclic rate of 200-300 rounds/minute although some variants can double that.) Theoretically a 30-round magazine could be emptied in about five seconds. A magazine limited to five rounds would run dry in about a half-second.

A shooter would at least spend six times as much time reloading with five round magazines as would be required with 30-round magazines, thereby allowing more time for escape.

No one solution will solve every possibility, but restricting ammunition capacity has the most impact in the least amount of time -- providing, of course, that there is a push for a doable solution instead of an unfocussed all-out offensive against firearms in general.

 

[sr71plt]

Another gunslinger crossing over:

Excerpt from the 19 December New York Daily News online file article “CHANGE OF HEART: Conservative Joe Scarborough stuns with call for gun control”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ough-stuns-call-gun-control-article-1.1222198

“Joe Scarborough, the Republican congressman turned MSNBC host, stunned viewers on Monday with a wrenching 10-minute monologue confessing to a change of heart on gun control following the devastating massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

"‘I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA's highest ratings over four terms in Congress,’ Scarborough said during the lengthy statement in which his eyes sometimes appeared filled with tears. He said he has ‘always taken a libertarian's approach to Hollywood's 1st Amendment rights and gun collectors' 2nd Amendment rights.’

“But he said ‘the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant’ after Friday's tragic events, in which 20 young children and six adults were brutally cut down by one disturbed young man armed with assault weapons.

"‘Entertainment moguls do not have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America,’ he said. ‘And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-styled high-caliber semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want.’

"‘Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,’ Scarborough said. ‘They must instead be forced to defend our children.’”

 

[TE999]

providing, of course, that there is a push for a doable solution instead of an unfocused all-out offensive against firearms in general.

Christ Almighty! Are you people still squabbling over this?

In re: your statement, Harold, that is exactly what a lot of people on this thread are advocating in the mistaken belief that taking guns out of the hands of the general populace is somehow going to make us all safer. It won't.

It was a tragedy when those children were murdered by that loony with unsecured firearms, but an incident like this doesn't justify a wholesale usurpation of peoples rights to keep and bear arms as stated in the Constitution. Yes, the Amendment mentions a well regulated militia, but our forefathers had something else in mind when they wrote that, to wit: it's never called a 'government controlled ' militia.

They knew from past experience that anything government controlled could be used against the governed at some future leaders whim and intended said militia to be controlled by the people to deal with any overreaching government usurpation of their Constitutional rights.

Disarming a populace invites tyranny as evidenced by Nazi Germany, the postwar Soviet Union, Communist China and any number of regimes and dictatorships throughout history. Banning firearms is a version of 'peace at any price' and we all know how well that worked for Neville Chamberlain.

The minute that people begin thinking that a government bureaucrat or an elected official is smarter than they are and can lead their lives more capably than they can, then say goodbye to your freedom; you have just become a ward of the state and are subject to its whims such as a 'Five Year Plan', a 'Cultural Revolution' or a 'Great Leap Forward'.

If you think that sort of thing couldn't happen here you're sadly mistaken.

I know my posts always engender squalls of outrage and invective directed at me, but I could care less. When last I checked, this forum was intended to offer the opportunity for a free and reasonable exchange of ideas and anyone who attempts to intimidate or shut down opinions, thoughts and ideas that differ from theirs isn't playing by the (unwritten) rules of free exchange and debate. It also makes them hypocrites.

If this forum's intent is (or was) to discuss the various aspects and influences of writing erotica, then all political and sociological subjects posted are in violation of this canon and should be removed forthwith and no further subjects of this kind should be posted.

Sound fair, everyone?

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, yes, you've made cleared that the situation amuses you, TE999, and it can be just swept under the rug. But guess what . . .

 

[TE999]

Yes, yes, you've made cleared that the situation amuses you, TE999, and it can be just swept under the rug. But guess what . . .

Guess what, you bit the hook, fishie.

BTW I don't recall saying I was amused by this tragedy, so don't distort my words as you so often do.

Thanks for proving my point ... again.

 

[sr71plt]

Guess what, you bit the hook, fishie.

BTW I don't recall saying I was amused by this tragedy, so don't distort my words as you so often do.

Thanks for proving my point ... again.

Guess what. When you use the symbol, you're showing amusement.

And you entrap yourself here. By posting that you were baiting a hook (which is lame all by itself), you are admitting that you are toying with the thread.

I don't think anyone has to prove your point--that's what your head rises to for all to see.

You dismissed the killing of 20 kids in a classroom as not as important as your having toy guns to play with. And now you come back to ask if this piddling little topic is still going on. You are a self-possessed asshole.

 

[mikey2much]

Joe's not hard right anymore

If he was, he wouldn't work where he does. However the right is pushed to the wall here. Their best bet is to lay low like the NRA is and wait for the 'next thing' to happen.

Once the spotlight moves on, nothing will get done.

I would like to note something that Harold has been trying to say. The firing rate on full auto for the AR15 is 720 rounds per minute. So a full mag would only last for a faction of a minute. With all the resources of the united states army behind us we had to train to use short, three round burst to conserve our ammo.

The time when you're changing the mag is when you are defenseless, so the bigger the mag the lest often you have to change. We used to tape ours together so that when you had emptied one you only had to quickly eject twist and re insert to be shooting again.

But I do think that they will outlaw the large capacity mags.

 

[sr71plt]

If he was, he wouldn't work where he does.

Sure he would. Both MSNBC and CNN hire conservative commentators as well as liberal ones. Any serious news agency would. You mean there are news agencies that don't do that?

But to the observation that Scarborough has changed--yes, that's the point. One more changing. I trust if anyone catches a story that someone significant has changed to the other view, they will post it here.

 

[trysail]

What a fucking phony. Amazing. It's gone beyond amusing to downright hilarity.


Thanks for making my day.

 

[mikey2much]

I don't understand

What a fucking phony. Amazing. It's gone beyond amusing to downright hilarity.


Thanks for making my day.

Please explain it to me, who is a phony, and why?

I'm glad that we amused you and gave you a smile. You've done the same for us many times, we owed you a smile or two.

 

[NekoParks]

Triple Murder and Suicide in Colorado on 12/18

Another shooting. . . . and it barely made the headlines nationwide...

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/35...nman-released-from-jail-hours-before-shooting