Guns, Speech and Group Punishment

[Brooks]

Has anyone ever seen the Westboro Baptist Church at soldiers’ funerals? They hold up signs that say “God Hates Fags” and taunt the mourners and defile the memory of the hero.
.
What if President Obama said “The vile mutterings of this despicable group will no longer be tolerated. They sting our souls and cause a lifetime of pain for fellow citizens at their most vulnerable. In light of the actions of this hateful mob, I shall be asking congress to take away all United States citizens’ rights to publicly criticize others or to use these words outside of their own homes or outside of controlled, indoor discussion areas.”
.
We would never accept such unconstitutional, wide-swath punishment, but this is what the president has done with gun ownership after Sandy Hook.

I am NOT in favor of 15 round clips, but I’m less in favor of twisted reasoning, for political expediency, by a president who was too busy for the first 46 months of his presidency to prevent such tragedies.

 

[David]

Has anyone ever seen the Westboro Baptist Church at soldiers’ funerals? They hold up signs that say “God Hates Fags” and taunt the mourners and defile the memory of the hero.
.
What if President Obama said “The vile mutterings of this despicable group will no longer be tolerated. They sting our souls and cause a lifetime of pain for fellow citizens at their most vulnerable. In light of the actions of this hateful mob, I shall be asking congress to take away all United States citizens’ rights to publicly criticize others or to use these words outside of their own homes or outside of controlled, indoor discussion areas.”
.
We would never accept such unconstitutional, wide-swath punishment, but this is what the president has done with gun ownership after Sandy Hook.

I am NOT in favor of 15 round clips, but I’m less in favor of twisted reasoning, for political expediency, by a president who was too busy for the first 46 months of his presidency to prevent such tragedies.

President Obama has in no way used his (non-existent in this case) powers to make guns illegal. Indeed he has gone out of his way to be seen with guns just to shut up people like you.

 

[tecoyah]

Has anyone ever seen the Westboro Baptist Church at soldiers’ funerals? They hold up signs that say “God Hates Fags” and taunt the mourners and defile the memory of the hero.
.
What if President Obama said “The vile mutterings of this despicable group will no longer be tolerated. They sting our souls and cause a lifetime of pain for fellow citizens at their most vulnerable. In light of the actions of this hateful mob, I shall be asking congress to take away all United States citizens’ rights to publicly criticize others or to use these words outside of their own homes or outside of controlled, indoor discussion areas.”
.
We would never accept such unconstitutional, wide-swath punishment, but this is what the president has done with gun ownership after Sandy Hook.

I am NOT in favor of 15 round clips, but I’m less in favor of twisted reasoning, for political expediency, by a president who was too busy for the first 46 months of his presidency to prevent such tragedies.

Interesting analogy...though obviously flawed and agenda driven.

 

[Brooks]

Interesting analogy...though obviously flawed and agenda driven.

To paraphrase Captain Renault in Casablanca, " I'm shocked, shocked to find that" there is an agenda on a political forum!

My point is that if one's defense of the First Amendment is principled, ie constitutionally based, he should be offended when any constitutionally permissible activity is abridged for an entire group.

 

[tecoyah]

To paraphrase Captain Renault in Casablanca, " I'm shocked, shocked to find that" there is an agenda on a political forum!

My point is that if one's defense of the First Amendment is principled, ie constitutionally based, he should be offended when any constitutionally permissible activity is abridged for an entire group.

I agree, if the second was under attack it is certainly untenable, just as the destruction of our freedom of speech would be. Thing is I personally do not see logical limits of said rights to be an attack, nor do most Constitutional Scholars.

Unless you feel it an attack on the first to prevent someone from yelling fire in a theater, You should not consider it an attack on the second to limit your right to guns.

Most Americans see things this way, most gun owners see things this way, most law enforcement see things this way.

Those who do not are in a strange minority.

 

[Brooks]

Unless you feel it an attack on the first to prevent someone from yelling fire in a theater, You should not consider it an attack on the second to limit your right to guns.

The word "limit" is so amorphous. It covers everything that lies between the government giving away free assault weapons to the government taking EVERY firearm away. To keep this on the same plane we should be careful using that word since it's open to too much interpretation.

Anyway, my point is that after complete first term inaction, the president's solution is to set up more restrictive parameters that cover EVERY gun owner because of the actions of one bad one. It was a political reaction to a complicated constitutional issue.

Your "fire in a [crowded] theater" analogy would work better if there were a clear and present danger everytime a gun owner had a fifteen round clip, but there simply isn't.

 

[tecoyah]

The word "limit" is so amorphous. It covers everything that lies between the government giving away free assault weapons to the government taking EVERY firearm away. To keep this on the same plane we should be careful using that word since it's open to too much interpretation.

Anyway, my point is that after complete first term inaction, the president's solution is to set up more restrictive parameters that cover EVERY gun owner because of the actions of one bad one. It was a political reaction to a complicated constitutional issue.

Your "fire in a [crowded] theater" analogy would work better if there were a clear and present danger everytime a gun owner had a fifteen round clip, but there simply isn't.

I agree the term "Limits" can be interpreted many ways, thus said limits are usually clarified...as is the case here. I see the President making this a priority due to the nation seemingly requesting he do so, and the reasoning looks to go far beyond "one bad one"

As for a clear and present danger every time, I would like to point out we already forbid the presence of the weapons being targeted from most public areas. No one is attempting to prevent the conceal/carry ability, or remove the right to obtain, use, enjoy, or collect most guns. However, just as we have decided causing a stampede in a crowded space should be avoided...we seem to have decided allowing anyone to kill en mass should be avoided as well, and this is one step toward that goal.

 

[Brooks]

However, just as we have decided causing a stampede in a crowded space should be avoided...we seem to have decided allowing anyone to kill en mass should be avoided as well, and this is one step toward that goal.

Again, I think the theater analogy is a little forced.

Abridging everyone's right to something because someone may misuse it, is akin to saying everyone has to be silent in a theater bacause someone may yell fire.

I am for as little gun ownership as possible. I was a member of an organization called "National Coalition to Ban Handguns" (it no longer exists). This is not about me wanting more guns out there.

The president was in office for around 46 months when he announced he wanted something done by mid-January. He wanted a full six weeks put into this complicated issue.

I'm for doing something that works. Forced political gestures rarely result in such.

 

[tecoyah]

Again, I think the theater analogy is a little forced.

Abridging everyone's right to something because someone may misuse it, is akin to saying everyone has to be silent in a theater bacause someone may yell fire.

I am for as little gun ownership as possible. I was a member of an organization called "National Coalition to Ban Handguns" (it no longer exists). This is not about me wanting more guns out there.

The president was in office for around 46 months when he announced he wanted something done by mid-January. He wanted a full six weeks put into this complicated issue.

I'm for doing something that works. Forced political gestures rarely result in such.

I am not for placing limits on rational gun ownership...I feel better able to protect my family with my own. This comment however I will address:

Abridging everyone's right to something because someone may misuse it, is akin to saying everyone has to be silent in a theater bacause someone may yell fire.

This corrupts the analogy.
Yelling in a theater is not forbidden, yelling a particular word however is.

Owning a gun is not illegal, owning a gun developed for the express purpose of killing humans would be.

 

[David]

I am not for placing limits on rational gun ownership...I feel better able to protect my family with my own. This comment however I will address:




This corrupts the analogy.
Yelling in a theater is not forbidden, yelling a particular word however is.

Owning a gun is not illegal, owning a gun developed for the express purpose of killing humans would be.

But killing humans is kind of the reason for the 2nd Amendment... I get your point but the reason for the 2nd Amendment (armed revolution) gets in the way.

 

[tecoyah]

But killing humans is kind of the reason for the 2nd Amendment... I get your point but the reason for the 2nd Amendment (armed revolution) gets in the way.

According to your interpretation, this is likely true.
According to my interpretation it is not.

I suggest we use an arbiter to moderate the disagreement....perhaps a court of some kind, preferably a supreme one.

The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

They will likely uphold this as well.

 

[Polydectes]

I am not for placing limits on rational gun ownership...I feel better able to protect my family with my own. This comment however I will address:

You actually are in favor of putting limits on it. You may have a different idea of what rational is. You have limited out to what you believe is rational.

This corrupts the analogy.
Yelling in a theater is not forbidden, yelling a particular word however is.

Owning a gun is not illegal, owning a gun developed for the express purpose of killing humans would be.

No gun has that expressed purpose.

 

[tecoyah]

...snip....




No gun has that expressed purpose.

Unless you have an alternate explanation for the development of the AR-15, I think I will use this one:

"
[SIZE=+3]I[/SIZE]n 1948, the U.S. Army established the Operations Research Office (ORO) to analytically study a number of problems associated with ground weapons in the nuclear era.
One of ORO's early projects was ALCLAD, a search for better infantry body armor. During this search, the ORO discovered just how little was known about how individuals were wounded in combat. ORO looked into several questions regarding the manner in which soldiers were struck by rifle projectiles and shell fragments, including:

• frequency and distribution of such hits
• the types of wounds incurred in combat and
• the average ranges at which wounds were inflicted

Answers to these questions were obtained by evaluating over three million casualty reports for World Wars I and II, as well as data from the Korean conflict.
ORO's investigations revealed that in the overall picture, aimed fire did not seem to have any more important role in creating casualties than randomly fired shots. Marksmanship was not as important as volume. Fire was seldom effectively used beyond 300 meters due to terrain (WWII, Korea) although sharpshooters in WWI frequently saw 1200m shots, and it discovered that most kills occur at 100 meters or less.
From this data, ORO concluded that what the Army needed was a low recoil weapon firing a number of small projectiles so in 1957 the United States Army Continental Army Command (CONARC) sought commercial assistance in the development of a 5.56mm military rifle.
CONARC sponsored the development of a .22 military rifle and asked Winchester and Armalite to come up with designs for a high-velocity, full and semi auto fire, 20 shot magazine, 6lbs loaded, able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle."


Perhaps the M-16 has a more compelling history:

"

The history of the modern assault rifle began during World War II when German Weapons engineers designed the 'Sturmgewehr'. The Sturmgewehr was the first rifle that could fire a medium size bullet at high rates of fire. Its main advantages were small size and light weight. After World War II, the American Military realized that it needed a new rifle, which would be at least capable of the features of the German Sturmgewehr.
As written by Edward C. Ezell in The Great Rifle Controversy, the development of the M16 rifle began with the research conducted at John Hopkins University in September of 1948. The research was to question infantrymen, who fought in Korea, about their battle experiences. It was found that 95% of their firing was within 300 yards. Also, there were just as many lethal hits from un-aimed shoots as from aimed ones. This information led the military to the conclusion that a .22 caliber rifle capable of selective fire was the best solution.
With this information the military went to Eugene Stoner, a Marine Corps Veteran who started to design rifles after being decommissioned, and asked him if he was interested in designing a weapon based on their research. The requirements for the new weapon were that it had to weight less than 6 pounds loaded, it had to be a .22 caliber, it had to be selective fire capable and it had to be able to penetrate a steel helmet out to 500 meters.
The rifle the military was using up to that date, the old M14, was a heavy, .308 caliber, large, selective fire capable rifle. The benefits of a large caliber like the .308 NATO, which are longer range and greater penetration, were not needed. The rifle has actually some major disadvantages. Due to its large caliber, when fired in full-auto mode the rifle recoils so much, that only the first one or two bullets hit the target. Secondly, the large caliber means that the ammunition itself is quite heavy and large compared to an M16 round, which means that soldiers must carry less ammunition. Its large size and heavy weight make it difficult for soldiers to use during combat situations. Even though, I have to give the M14 some credit. It was very popular among soldiers due to its great reliability. Also, the M14 is still used by the military in limited quantities. To get back to the differences between the M14 and M16, I will explain the advantages of the M16 over the M14.
Because the military demanded a .22 caliber round which could penetrate a steel helmet at 500 meters, Stoner needed a more powerful cartridge than there was currently available. Stoner had Remington Arms company increase the capacity of their .222 Remingt on to fire a 55-grain bullet at 3300 feet per second. This new round meet the criteria, and compared to the .308 NATO caliber round of the M14 it was much lighter, smaller and produced less recoil when fired. Recoil is the force acting on the shooter when firing any kind of powder gun. The larger the caliber is, the more powder is used to propel the bullet out of the barrel, and more powder means more recoil. Compared to the M-14's 10-inch jerk upwards the M-16 jerks only about 2 inches up after firing. Thus, a smaller cartridge, with less recoil keeps the rifle aimed at the target after fired. Because the ammunition is lighter and smaller, soldiers can carry a lot more ammunition. The lower weight of the rifle itself benefits the soldiers simply by less weight, which they have to hold in their hands. Besides that, it made the weapon easier to handle, which was probably the more important factor. When Stoner was designing the M16, he used design features from many different weapons, to create the perfect rifle for the American soldier. Another important aspect included in Stoners' design was the simplicity of the M16 rifle. Stoner eliminated many moving parts, to make the rifle simple to operate and cheaper to manufacture."


I suppose though, the Military could have developed these weapons for target practice.

 

[Polydectes]

Unless you have an alternate explanation for the development of the AR-15, I think I will use this one:

"
[SIZE=+3]I[/SIZE]n 1948, the U.S. Army established the Operations Research Office (ORO) to analytically study a number of problems associated with ground weapons in the nuclear era.
One of ORO's early projects was ALCLAD, a search for better infantry body armor. During this search, the ORO discovered just how little was known about how individuals were wounded in combat. ORO looked into several questions regarding the manner in which soldiers were struck by rifle projectiles and shell fragments, including:

• frequency and distribution of such hits
• the types of wounds incurred in combat and
• the average ranges at which wounds were inflicted

Answers to these questions were obtained by evaluating over three million casualty reports for World Wars I and II, as well as data from the Korean conflict.
ORO's investigations revealed that in the overall picture, aimed fire did not seem to have any more important role in creating casualties than randomly fired shots. Marksmanship was not as important as volume. Fire was seldom effectively used beyond 300 meters due to terrain (WWII, Korea) although sharpshooters in WWI frequently saw 1200m shots, and it discovered that most kills occur at 100 meters or less.
From this data, ORO concluded that what the Army needed was a low recoil weapon firing a number of small projectiles so in 1957 the United States Army Continental Army Command (CONARC) sought commercial assistance in the development of a 5.56mm military rifle.
CONARC sponsored the development of a .22 military rifle and asked Winchester and Armalite to come up with designs for a high-velocity, full and semi auto fire, 20 shot magazine, 6lbs loaded, able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle."


Perhaps the M-16 has a more compelling history:

"

The history of the modern assault rifle began during World War II when German Weapons engineers designed the 'Sturmgewehr'. The Sturmgewehr was the first rifle that could fire a medium size bullet at high rates of fire. Its main advantages were small size and light weight. After World War II, the American Military realized that it needed a new rifle, which would be at least capable of the features of the German Sturmgewehr.
As written by Edward C. Ezell in The Great Rifle Controversy, the development of the M16 rifle began with the research conducted at John Hopkins University in September of 1948. The research was to question infantrymen, who fought in Korea, about their battle experiences. It was found that 95% of their firing was within 300 yards. Also, there were just as many lethal hits from un-aimed shoots as from aimed ones. This information led the military to the conclusion that a .22 caliber rifle capable of selective fire was the best solution.
With this information the military went to Eugene Stoner, a Marine Corps Veteran who started to design rifles after being decommissioned, and asked him if he was interested in designing a weapon based on their research. The requirements for the new weapon were that it had to weight less than 6 pounds loaded, it had to be a .22 caliber, it had to be selective fire capable and it had to be able to penetrate a steel helmet out to 500 meters.
The rifle the military was using up to that date, the old M14, was a heavy, .308 caliber, large, selective fire capable rifle. The benefits of a large caliber like the .308 NATO, which are longer range and greater penetration, were not needed. The rifle has actually some major disadvantages. Due to its large caliber, when fired in full-auto mode the rifle recoils so much, that only the first one or two bullets hit the target. Secondly, the large caliber means that the ammunition itself is quite heavy and large compared to an M16 round, which means that soldiers must carry less ammunition. Its large size and heavy weight make it difficult for soldiers to use during combat situations. Even though, I have to give the M14 some credit. It was very popular among soldiers due to its great reliability. Also, the M14 is still used by the military in limited quantities. To get back to the differences between the M14 and M16, I will explain the advantages of the M16 over the M14.
Because the military demanded a .22 caliber round which could penetrate a steel helmet at 500 meters, Stoner needed a more powerful cartridge than there was currently available. Stoner had Remington Arms company increase the capacity of their .222 Remingt on to fire a 55-grain bullet at 3300 feet per second. This new round meet the criteria, and compared to the .308 NATO caliber round of the M14 it was much lighter, smaller and produced less recoil when fired. Recoil is the force acting on the shooter when firing any kind of powder gun. The larger the caliber is, the more powder is used to propel the bullet out of the barrel, and more powder means more recoil. Compared to the M-14's 10-inch jerk upwards the M-16 jerks only about 2 inches up after firing. Thus, a smaller cartridge, with less recoil keeps the rifle aimed at the target after fired. Because the ammunition is lighter and smaller, soldiers can carry a lot more ammunition. The lower weight of the rifle itself benefits the soldiers simply by less weight, which they have to hold in their hands. Besides that, it made the weapon easier to handle, which was probably the more important factor. When Stoner was designing the M16, he used design features from many different weapons, to create the perfect rifle for the American soldier. Another important aspect included in Stoners' design was the simplicity of the M16 rifle. Stoner eliminated many moving parts, to make the rifle simple to operate and cheaper to manufacture."


I suppose though, the Military could have developed these weapons for target practice.

Many people use them to hunt, I know three people that use them to hunt.

Furthermore, you are talking about an m-16, that is not an AR-15. M-16s are very difficult to obtain, an AR is an ordinary rifle.

 

[tecoyah]

Many people use them to hunt, I know three people that use them to hunt.

Furthermore, you are talking about an m-16, that is not an AR-15. M-16s are very difficult to obtain, an AR is an ordinary rifle.

You again change your debate issue...it is not a fun way to play, as you never actually manage to reach a conclusion and lose the debate by default by moving the goalposts.

Your initial comment:

No gun has that expressed purpose.

My reply most certainly refuted it, and had you spent the time to read it would have noted it began with the AR-15 history, with an M16 follow up.

 

[Polydectes]

You again change your debate issue...it is not a fun way to play, as you never actually manage to reach a conclusion and lose the debate by default by moving the goalposts.

must mean your position isn't rational.

My reply most certainly refuted it, and had you spent the time to read it would have noted it began with the AR-15 history, with an M16 follow up.

the AR-15 is am ordinary rifle, I am confused as to what makes it worse than any other rifle. All rifles were developed for the expressed point of killing. The gun doesn't care what the target is.

M-16s are not easy to obtain, they are different.

 

[tecoyah]

must mean your position isn't rational.

Though your reply makes no sense whatsoever in the context of what it was in answer to.....


Yes, you are correct....have fun stormin' the castle.

 

[Polydectes]

Though your reply makes no sense whatsoever in the context of what it was in answer to.....


Yes, you are correct....have fun stormin' the castle.

my response doesn't make sense? What castle are you talking about?

You want to support the ban of an ordinary rifle because of... Your political party? I don't know.

If that is all it takes to best you in debate, this will be easy.

 

[Cerise]

must mean your position isn't rational.





the AR-15 is am ordinary rifle, I am confused as to what makes it worse than any other rifle. All rifles were developed for the expressed point of killing. The gun doesn't care what the target is.

M-16s are not easy to obtain, they are different.

Exactly. Now we have to decide who is going to be killed by one and why.

 

[Polydectes]

Exactly. Now we have to decide who is going to be killed by one and why.

Killed by a gun or by anything else, what difference does it make? If someone is going to kill, they are going to kill, the method is secondary