Ban "Cop Killer" Assault Pistol

Thomas wrote:

I think its logic is invalid, and does not address what cjha meant (though he would be a better judge of that). For analogy, consider this argument about the design of cars: "Gas pedals are on the whole supposed to speed up your car. Breaks are - well - breaks are for slowing down". It sounds convincing because that's the immediate effect of a break. But the statement is silly as a description of the break's net effect, which is to speed up your car on average. The owner knows that there is a break, expects he can slow down the car whenever he needs to, so can drive much faster in the intervals between hitting the breaks, when he doesn't need to slow down.

An excellent observation, although I'm not sure it squarely addresses goodfielder's point. The accelerator and breaks work in tandem: they constitute a system designed to achieve a single object. If one doesn't work, then the other is rendered largely useless.

Thomas wrote:

Similar logic applies to the control of guns, which have the immediate effect to injure, but which also have indirect effects through changing people's expectations. A plausible argument has been made by scholars like John Lott and Gary Kleck that gun possession by law-abiding citizens discourages violent crime. There is no consensus among criminologists and statisticians that this is true -- but if it is, guns may well be net savers of life, even if the immediate consequence of their use is to injure and kill.

That's a bit like saying that, if one aspirin will cure a headache, then 100 aspirins will cure a headache even faster. If it were true that the net consequence of guns, through their indirect effects, is to save lives, then we should advocate the arming of everyone. Yet I'm not so certain that a fully armed populace is any less menacing or dangerous than one in which only certain members are armed.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

That's a bit like saying that, if one aspirin will cure a headache, then 100 aspirins will cure a headache even faster.

You are correct, I oversimplified. What I should have said is that at present levels of gun carrying, laws that tend to reduce it tend to increase violent crime, other things being equal. At least that is Lott's and Kleck's interpretation of pertinent data. If they are correct, it follows that the optimal right of gun carrying is higher than it is today -- but not necessarily that it's 100%. Is that statement closer to something you can agree with?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

If they are correct, it follows that the optimal right of gun carrying is higher than it is today -- but not necessarily that it's 100%. Is that statement closer to something you can agree with?

I doubt that the analysis presented by Lott and Kleck is correct, but I haven't read their work so I'll reserve judgment on it.

Furthermore, even if there is an optimal level of gun ownership (perhaps on a bell-curve type of distribution), and that level is higher than the current level of gun ownership, I'm not sure how a change in laws could achieve that optimal result.

0 Replies

The fact of the matter all this is is a handgun capable of firing a rifle cartridge. This discussion is really about an ammo ban.

Good luck with that.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

The fact of the matter all this is is a handgun capable of firing a rifle cartridge. This discussion is really about an ammo ban.

Good luck with that.

Actually I wonder what the constitution says about this. As I understand the controversial debate about the Second Amendment, even the more restrictive interpretations acknowledge that one thing it protects is your, the people's collective right to resist a tyrannical government. If that situation actually arose and the government did get tyrannical, I see no way you could effectively resist it without killing lots of cops. After all, they would be the ones enforcing the tyranny. So on the face of it, 'cop-killer' ammunition is precisely what the Second Amendment protects. By contrast, those cuddly, little convenience guns, the ones for hunting and personal self-protection, would seem to be most constitutionally dubious kind.

0 Replies

A cuddly little 30-06 will easily penetrate body armor. It's all about muzzle velocity and energy.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Furthermore, even if there is an optimal level of gun ownership (perhaps on a bell-curve type of distribution), and that level is higher than the current level of gun ownership, I'm not sure how a change in laws could achieve that optimal result.

Neither am I. As you know, I am generally skeptical of the hope that governments can positively opimize much. Instead, I will settle for government restraint in meddling with the choices law-abiding citizens make in the market for guns, and therefore welcome the trend towards 'shall issue' state laws over the last few decades.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Guns are just a tool. I use mine to trim trees. Works pretty well.

I have to admit I've been there. It wasn't much of a tree though. It was pretty well dessicated. But it was useful to test out the shotgun I'd just bought - for self-protection - and to see the effect of the various gauges and slugs I was using. Strangely the solid slugs seemed not to be that effective.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

A cuddly little 30-06 will easily penetrate body armor. It's all about muzzle velocity and energy.

Will the ceramic inserts stop that size? I know even the III-A won't but those ceramic inserts just might do the job - hopefully.

0 Replies

I'd personally not want to test it, goodfielder. Not from inside the armor, anyway. I'm surprised about the slug too, by the way.

0 Replies

I agree with that roger - I saw the video of the bloke that tested his own body armour on himself - made my eyes water. As for the solid slug. I have pondered that. If often wonder why the 00 was more effective than the solid slug and I came to a conclusion.

I missed.

From ten feet.

Now you know why I prefer shotguns Very Happy

0 Replies

Forum Index » Legal Ban "Cop Killer" Assault Pistol

Sorry for any redundancy on my part but I am just dropping in on this thread.

I see the 2nd amendment, like the first and others as the freedom/responsibility complement. Many at the conception of the U.S. Constitution felt that the Bill of Rights demanded by many states was not only unnecessary but dangerous. This was not because they were closet monarchists but for just the opposite reason. Here, the logic went, to enumerate rights was to exclude those not so codified. Additionally, the recognition of such rights by any such legitimate body (Constitutional Congress or the U.S. Congress) naturally implies not only that body's right to do so but also it's right to deny or revoke such rights when and if it collectively so decides. That is, what Congress may give, it may also take away or even exclude altogether. Indeed, we have seen a bit of this concept at work in the recent passage of the Patriot Acts and something of it in reverse with the repeal of prohibition back in the early 1930's.

But most tend to think of these enumerated rights as basic starting rather than ending points regarding American rights. I always feel overwhelming resistance when legislators begin that slippery slide and commence to pass laws limiting specific actions within specific contexts regarding specific items. Sure it makes sense to ban the ammo that does the armor piercing while leaving the legal sale of the weapon itself intact. But it is this specificity that tends to erode the larger right of weapon ownership and use. So we see legitimacy in a bolt action 30 caliber rifle properly secured in the back window of a pick-up truck during certain times at certain geographical locations. But the legitimacy quickly fades for a 9mm fully automatic machine pistol with a 1 inch barrel. At what point does this weapon's metamorphosis become illegal? Would this weapon be more legally or morally acceptable if it was only capable of semi-automatic action? To some, yes, to others it is still unnecessary: the judgment is subjective at best.

The problem is the legislative removal of basic free human agency. This is the result of not accepting the responsibility that comes with the freedom. Legislators too easily end up punishing all citizens for the irresponsibility of a few which then results in less freedom for all. The founding fathers would rely less upon specifics and place the emphasis, instead upon personal responsibility.

It is impossible to legislate either morality or personal responsibility but, like lawmakers, I feel something must be done. Today's technology allows those that eschew morally responsible behavior with tremendous destructive power when so desired (Not just guns are involved here--internet shenanigans create a lot of damage in their own right). Our guide must not be personal behavior, but its intended and actual effect. Likewise, our constitutional interpretation must be of original intent. The purpose of an individual's 2nd Amendment right to bare arms was not to allow hunting or even to allow hobbyist to collect the most powerful weapons and entertain themselves thereby. This right was reserved so as to make it more difficult for strong central governments to take on a life of their own and usurp the legitimate power vested in the people. It was to dilute such a state's monopoly of violence given its loss of legitimacy. But even this reclamation of liberty requires the legitimate organization of concerned citizens and is not a green flag for individuals with the perception, correct or not, that their liberties have been abrogated to pursue redress by violence. So it is in this context that we must decide whether an individual with such firepower (full automatic weapons with armor penetrating rounds) is an asset to our form of government or merely an individual threat to his local community.

JM

0 Replies

Well put JM.

0 Replies

JamesMorrison wrote:

That is, what Congress may give, it may also take away or even exclude altogether.
JM

I take your point, JM, but not in regard to the Second Amendment. Thomas made the point some time ago that throughout the constitution we see phrases like Congress shall have the power. . . . or The executive is given. . . . Now, the Second Amendment uses different wording in saying that the right shall not be infringed. My point is that the constitution does not give such a right. It confirms an existing right, if I understand correctly

0 Replies

It is frequently ignored that the introductory clause to the second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . " It is inconvenient to those who wish to contend that there can be no regulation of firearms to take note of that clause, because they would then be obliged to acknowledge the concept of well-regulated. Time and again, i've had NRA members tell me that that clause is meaningless--yeah, right, as though lawyers ever write meaningless language into legislation.

Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress, among which are listed:

(Congress shall have the power)To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, it is a grant of privilege to allow people to carry firearms, given that Congress is granted the power to call out the militia to enforce the law, suppress insurrections or repel invasions. Neither that passage nor the second amendment guarantee any right for citizens to have firearms in their possession, or to decide for themselves when the laws need to be enforced or when a situation can be considered insurrectionary. No discretion for individual action is granted. Furthermore, Congress is given the power to provide for arming and disciplining the militia--it is absurd to attempt to argue that Congress does not have the power to write gun-control legislation.

These sorts of discussions crop up online constantly, and they quickly become absurd. The overt contention is that people have the right to own whatever firearms they please for whatever reason they please--nothing in the Constitution guarantees such a broad construction of the right to bear arms. The covert agenda is to have firearms to protect oneself from governmental tyranny--and that is truly laughably absurd. If the "jackbooted thugs" (language used by the NRA) come for you, they'll have armored personnel carriers, kevlar vest, helmets, machine pistols, teargas canister lauchers, helicopters, etc., etc. You gonna stop 'em with your Smith and Wesson? Give me a break.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress, among which are listed:

(Congress shall have the power)To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So, it is a grant of privilege to allow people to carry firearms, given that Congress is granted the power to call out the militia to enforce the law, suppress insurrections or repel invasions. Neither that passage nor the second amendment guarantee any right for citizens to have firearms in their possession, or to decide for themselves when the laws need to be enforced or when a situation can be considered insurrectionary. No discretion for individual action is granted. Furthermore, Congress is given the power to provide for arming and disciplining the militia--it is absurd to attempt to argue that Congress does not have the power to write gun-control legislation.

These sorts of discussions crop up online constantly, and they quickly become absurd.

And you continue to post this nonsense which takes absurdity to the extreme.

No where in the clause you've quoted does it say that a citizen can't arm themselves. If one reads the records of the debate on this clause the record shows the clear intent of the words.

Mr Miller is quoted as saying that "arming" meant "specifying the kind size and caliber of arms".

Mr. Madison stated that ""arming" as explained did not did not extend to furnishing arms".

Mr. King added "that arming meant not only to provide for uniformity of arms, but included authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by the militia themselves, the State Governments, or the National Treasury".

It is very clear from the records of the convention that the drafters never intended that the Congress be the sole provider of weapons for the militias.

You also ignore that the clause only provides for "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States". It provides no authority to govern those that haven't been called in Federal service. That is left to the citzens themselves and the states.

Even if the clause were interpreted to reflect your view, the 2nd Amendment was passed AFTER the basic document and would supercede it. Any privilege that may have been granted was codified into a recognized right by the 2nd Amendment.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

And you continue to post this nonsense which takes absurdity to the extreme.

You should look in the mirror while repeating that sentence.

Quote:

No where in the clause you've quoted does it say that a citizen can't arm themselves. If one reads the records of the debate on this clause the record shows the clear intent of the words.

I've not claimed that the constitution as amended says that a citizen cannot arm themselves. I have pointed out that no where does the constitution guarantee the citizen the right to arm themselves in any manner they please.

Quote:

Mr Miller is quoted as saying that "arming" meant "specifying the kind size and caliber of arms".

Precisely my point--Congress has the right to regulate fire arms to a degree of specificity.

Quote:

Mr. Madison stated that ""arming" as explained did not did not extend to furnishing arms".

I've not suggested anything of the kind. My point is as i've noted above, that Congress has the authority to regulate fire arms.

Quote:

Mr. King added "that arming meant not only to provide for uniformity of arms, but included authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by the militia themselves, the State Governments, or the National Treasury".

This does no violence to my point that Congress has the authority to regulate fire arms.

Quote:

It is very clear from the records of the convention that the drafters never intended that the Congress be the sole provider of weapons for the militias.

Nor have i ever suggested that this is the case. This is a pathetic straw man argument on your part.

Quote:

You also ignore that the clause only provides for "governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States". It provides no authority to govern those that haven't been called in Federal service. That is left to the citzens themselves and the states.

I've not ignored that--it is not germane to the question of Congress' authority to regulate fire arms.

Quote:

Even if the clause were interpreted to reflect your view, the 2nd Amendment was passed AFTER the basic document and would supercede it. Any privilege that may have been granted was codified into a recognized right by the 2nd Amendment.

Not only does the second amendment in no way negate the powers granted Congress in Article I, Section 8, the "well-regulated" clause is obviously referential to Congress' powers. You do slapdash work when your second amendment blood pressure rises, but this is pathetic even by your low standards.

0 Replies

Article I grants a power to congress. Second amendment confirms a right of the people. And. . . ?

0 Replies

Quote:

" . Now, the Second Amendment uses different wording in saying that the right shall not be infringed. My point is that the constitution does not give such a right. It confirms an existing right, if I understand correctly"

This is an excellent observation and brings up the concept of natural law. This dates at least back to ancient Greek times. It confirms an existing right, a right that one is born with, that cannot be revoked by any earthly entity and is recognized in all responsibly cognitive beings fit for self government. There is the ancient Greek tragedy of Antigone who, despite the Kings decree, buried her dead brother and therefore incurred the King's wrath and capital punishment. When called to defend herself for her disobeying the King's edict she cited that her duty to her dead brother trumped that of the King's edict:

"If no one else will join me in burying him, then I will bury him, and chance what danger may result from burying my own brother. Nor am I ashamed to disobey thus and defy the State ..."

Further,
"However, some believe at times, as Antigone did when she learned about the order, that such laws are unknown to Justice, that dwells with the gods. And even though government edicts are regarded as indispensable in a civilized society, they are sometimes resisted if they seem to overrule the unwritten and unalterable laws of Heaven"

Antigone law was natural, deep seated within the soul, and rooted in her very existence. The King's edict's were merely black letter law, arbitary, and countered rather than enforced justice.

In this vein of course, the 2nd Amendment is an extension of the natural law of one's right to self defense coupled with the noble purpose of liberty. So your noting of the phrase " shall not be infringed " is extremely apt.

It must be noted that the founders viewed personal liberty only in the context of and in concert with that of the community. The view that an individual's right to make or view pornography or possess an Uzi submachine gun terminated when it threatened communal liberty and cohesion. Perhaps we might learn from this.

JM

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

fishin' wrote:
And you continue to post this nonsense which takes absurdity to the extreme.

You should look in the mirror while repeating that sentence.

Why? Will I see your foaming at the mouth mug looking back at me??

Quote:

Quote:
No where in the clause you've quoted does it say that a citizen can't arm themselves. If one reads the records of the debate on this clause the record shows the clear intent of the words.

I've not claimed that the constitution as amended says that a citizen cannot arm themselves. I have pointed out that no where does the constitution guarantee the citizen the right to arm themselves in any manner they please.

Really??

"Neither that passage nor the second amendment guarantee any right for citizens to have firearms in their possession,".

Those are your exact words. Now you claim you didn't type that out? I don't see "in any manner they please" on that. Did someone sneak onto your computer while you were in the bathroom?

Quote:

Quote:
Mr Miller is quoted as saying that "arming" meant "specifying the kind size and caliber of arms".

Precisely my point--Congress has the right to regulate fire arms to a degree of specificity.

Quote:
Mr. Madison stated that ""arming" as explained did not did not extend to furnishing arms".

I've not suggested anything of the kind. My point is as i've noted above, that Congress has the authority to regulate fire arms.

And my point is that the founders that wrote the document only allowed the Congress that authority to cover the weapons used by the militia. That authority doesn't extend beyond the militia. An authority in the Constitutiion to require someone (or some state) have a firearm of a specific caliber doens't create any authority to prevent them from having them in any other caliber as well.

Quote:

Quote:
Even if the clause were interpreted to reflect your view, the 2nd Amendment was passed AFTER the basic document and would supercede it. Any privilege that may have been granted was codified into a recognized right by the 2nd Amendment.

Not only does the second amendment in no way negate the powers granted Congress in Article I, Section 8, the "well-regulated" clause is obviously referential to Congress' powers. You do slapdash work when your second amendment blood pressure rises, but this is pathetic even by your low standards.

Not nearly as slapdash or pathetic as your own. I didn't make any claim that the 2nd Amendment negated the authorities granted to the Congress. You've created your own little strawman. What I stated is that it codifies a right - a right that would supercede any prior grant of priviledge that may have existed as you claimed.

0 Replies

Ban "Cop Killer" Assault Pistol

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know