New York's Governor Pushes a New, Broader, Equally Pointless 'Assault Weapon' Ban

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is proposing new gun control legislation, including "one of the country's most restrictive bans on assault weapons," according to The New York Times. The story illustrates once again the confusion created by treating "assault weapons" as an objective category, as opposed to an arbitrary, scary-sounding term that has no meaning outside of the laws that define it.

New York's current "assault weapon" ban, enacted following the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, uses the same criteria as the federal law that expired in 2004. A rifle is deemed to be an "assault weapon," for instance, if it accepts a detachable magazine and has two or more of these five features: 1) a bayonet mount, 2) a grenade launcher, 3) a folding or telescoping stock, 4) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, or 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. The problem, according to the Times, is that "many high-powered rifles now in production are exempt from the ban because, advocacy groups say, manufacturers have altered their products to circumvent the law."

It is not clear what the Times means by "high-powered rifles." The definition of "assault weapon" has nothing to do with caliber, muzzle velocity, firing rate, or the number of rounds that can be fired before reloading (although a separate provision of New York's law bans magazines holding more than 10 rounds if they were made after September 13, 1994, as did the federal law). The reference to "high-powered rifles" suggests that "assault weapons" are distinguished by their killing capacity, which is not true, since their defining characteristics are essentially aesthetic. To muddy matters further, the Times says manufacturers who obey legislators' dictates concerning the appearance of their guns "have altered their products to circumvent the law," which makes no sense at all when you think about it. The law says you can't sell a rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has two or more of those five suspect features, so manufacturers stopped selling such rifles in New York. That is complying with the law, not circumventing it.

Suppose Cuomo's bill (which I have not seen yet) broadens the definition of "assault weapons" by saying that a detachable magazine plus just one of those five features is enough. If the bill passes and manufacturers respond by offering New York versions of their rifles without bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, etc., will that also mean they are circumventing the law?

This bill is ostensibly a response to last month's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where the shooter used a Bushmaster rifle that was legal under Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban, which uses the same criteria as New York's current law. Therefore the legislation Cuomo supports presumably will cover that particular model and configuration. But since the features disfavored by these laws have little or no functional significance in the hands of mass murderers, why should that be considered an accomplishment? "Of 769 homicides in New York State in 2011," the Times notes, "only five were committed with rifles of any kind." Even if one or more of those rifles would qualify as an "assault weapon" under Cuomo's new definition, so what? Any "assault weapon" ban that is even arguably consistent with the Second Amendment will leave people like Adam Lanza with plenty of equally deadly alternatives.

Here is how Cuomo explains the need for new gun control laws: "I think what the nation is saying now after Connecticut, what people in New York are saying, is 'do something, please.'" There's no denying this is something.

Update:  In his State of the State address this afternoon, Cuomo called upon the state legislature to enact "the toughest assault weapons ban in the country." It's not clear what he means by that. He described the aim as "ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles," which suggests he is really talking about the distinct issue of magazine size. Yet he listed "ban high-capacity magazines" as a separate action item. A press release from his office describes the change he favors this way:

We Must Pass the Toughest Assault Weapons Ban in the Country: New York's ban on assault weapons is so riddled with loopholes and so difficult to understand that it has become virtually unenforceable. While state law bans magazines with a capacity greater than ten rounds of ammunition, the law exempts magazines manufactured prior to 1994. Because magazines are not generally stamped with a serial number or other mark that would identify the date of manufacture, it is virtually impossible to determine whether a large capacity magazine was manufactured prior to 1994. In order to fix this problem, the Governor proposed tightening our assault weapons ban and eliminating large capacity magazines regardless of date of manufacture.

I gather from this that Cuomo wants to confiscate all the millions of pre-existing magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Good luck with that. But note that there is nothing here about changing the definition of an "assault weapon" so that gun makers can no longer "circumvent" it.

Update II: Cuomo reportedly wants to copy California's definition of "assault weapon."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Guns are bad, mmmmmkay.

  • tarran||

    It's like watching children trying to parent other children.

  • ||

    Like?

  • tarran||

    Yes, like.

    Because they aren't really children; if Cuomo's mommy called me and asked if my daughter could come over for a play-date it would be fucking creepy as hell.

  • ||

    Hell?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Tacoma

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Detroit

  • ||

    No, Renton.

  • ||

    Seatac

  • GILMORE||

    Albany
    Relevance FTW!!!

  • Brutus||

    Akron.

  • tarran||

    Don't be coy with me... not when you have this turkey in your DVD collection.

  • ||

    The thing is, dumbass, is that was unfortunately based on a Richard Matheson novel.

  • ||

    In an introductory note, Matheson explains that the characters are the only fictional component of the novel. Almost everything else is based on research, and the end of the novel includes a lengthy bibliography.

    In more then one way that fact does not help.

  • Jubal Harshaw||

    Maryland.

  • Tim||

    They won't stop banning shit until it's all gone.

  • sarcasmic||

    Outright banning everything will never fly. They'll just keep adding licenses and fees and taxes to the point where being a legal dealer is more trouble than it's worth, and even it wasn't no one could afford to buy anything.

  • SugarFree||

    Well, they are banning it, right? Why are people so mad? It's just irrational to be mad about regulatory burden.

  • SugarFree||

    *aren't banning* The glibness below made me mis-type.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So BO will issue an executive order for the universe to become a vacuum?

    That's grounds for impeachment. But I dont' think the dems would allow him to be convicted.

  • SugarFree||

    So BO will issue an executive order for the universe to become a vacuum?

    More glib. Can't you offer any serious analysis? Or are you just going to make unfunny jokes the entire time?

  • ||

    Tulpa can't even understand glib. This is like the address parsing nonsense all over again.

  • SugarFree||

    Fuck off, Epi. Can't you see this place is very serious business for very serious people to have very serious discussions about very serious issues in a very serious way?!?

  • Tim||

    Paste tastes like ice cream.

  • ||

    No.

  • Geoff Nathan||

    Like with marijuana?

  • fish||

    The law says you can't sell a rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has two or more of those five suspect features, so manufacturers stopped selling such rifles in New York. That is complying with the law, not circumventing it.

    Yeah well you fuckers should have known we wanted you to not have them at all. Geez...

  • wareagle||

    five suspect features

    jesus on a crutch....it's not bad enough that these folks always focus on things rather than people, now they are concentrating on features within things.

    Here's a clue: each mass shooting of late was perpetrated by a mentally unbalanced person. Till you can figure out a way to ban crazy, stop with the feel-good legislation that only adds to the previous feel-good legislation and is just as impactful.

  • fish||

    How dare you mock....the FIVE SUSPECT FEATURES!

  • Jubal Harshaw||

    Yeah, suspect features. If I buy a Pinto, paint it cany apple red, put low-profile tires on it and glue a wing on the back...
    Will Cuomo classify it as a Mustang? I mean, it is a Ford!

  • Enough About Palin||

    Ford almost sort of did that. When they brought back the Mustang, the first prototypes had it being built on a Probe Chassis. Shook like hell at highway speed, so the redesigned it from scratch.

  • Contrarian P||

    The Probe. Got to be one of the worst names for a car ever. I'm surprised there wasn't an "Anal" option package.

  • Translucent Chum||

    Knew a girl in HS who loved her Probe.

  • bocomoj||

    Bazinga!

  • AlmightyJB||

    A better analogy would be if you put racing stripes on a pinto they would call it a race car and who NEEDS a car like that.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "How dare you mock....the FIVE SUSPECT FEATURES!"

    To some degree we're almost lucky these aholes don't know anything about guns because if they do manage to pass their pointless ban they won't impact the funcionality of the gun. I would suggest legislation they could be passing which would impact fuctionality but I don't want to give them any ideas.

  • Brutus||

    You all scoff, but how much longer do we have to suffer the stream of corpses from the Crips' and Bloods' bayonet charges at each other?

  • GILMORE||

    How dare you mock....the FIVE SUSPECT FEATURES!

    one of them turns out to be Kaiser Soze

  • Rasilio||

    No, please don't ask them to focus on that.

    I would honestly much rather them waste their time in a quixotic quest to ban scary nasty guns than finding ways to define what is too crazy to be out on the street.

    The 2nd is MUCH more likely to land me in jail than the first.

  • Tim||

    King George III " Why does anyone need a musket that can hit targets past 50 feet?"

  • bmp1701||

    I've even been told that some people have "Kentucky Longrifles" with rifled barrels, which have no purpose except to allow terrorists to kill honest, hardworking soldiers from terrifying distances.

  • Jubal Harshaw||

    Which was why Patriot troops could perform a maneuver the Brits couldn't: Retreat under covering fire.
    Send the riflemen across the river first while the musketmen cover, then bring the musketmen across the river while the riflemen cover.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Here we go...

    "The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."

    All together now: ROMNEY AND RYAN WOULD HAVE DONE IT TOO!

  • db||

    Can anyone think of a quicker way to start a Constitutional crisis?

  • ||

    All hail the imperial presidency!

  • Jubal Harshaw||

    "Heil myself!"

  • WTF||

    That assumes that congress would actually be willing to go to the mats on it. I have my doubts. So we'd be left with a case winding its way through the courts, until the Nazgul take it and figure out a way to pretend it's actually okay.

  • db||

    Yes, the House would have to vote to impeach, which might be a way for the Republicans to get some credibility back, but for damn sure the Senate would return a not guilty verdict, regardless of evidence of Presidential violation of the separation of powers and at least two Amendments.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    While I'm a lot less radical than most around here, I would damn well expect the GOP house to refuse to pass any legislation BO wants until he rescinds such an execution order. And the GOP senate to filibuster.

    A large part of this might be that he's trying to protect Dem senators in red states who are up for reelection in 2014.

  • WTF||

    I would damn well expect the GOP house to refuse to pass any legislation BO wants until he rescinds such an execution order. And the GOP senate to filibuster.

    The republicans have already shown (fiscal cliff!!!ZOMG!!11!!) they don't have the stones to do either in the face of media criticism.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Unfortunately I think this is probably right. There is some glimmer of hope that this is much bigger than the stuff that's come before.

  • robc||

    If the GOP was willing to do that, ACA repeal would have been attached to everything the last 2 years.

  • ||

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that guns is a more salient issue amongst the GOP base than the ACA and its repeal.

    Exhibit A) The nomination of Willard Romney.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Err...that's a poor exhibit, given that Mittens signed an assault weapon ban.

  • ||

    All together now: SHUT UP TULPA!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Haha. Look who's got salty tears now.

  • SugarFree||

    And look who's being glib.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    How so? There's no substance in darius' comment to respond to.

  • SugarFree||

    Telling you to shut up about your butthurt TEAM RED whining has plenty of substance. Dense, delicious substance.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    As opposed to impotent and butthurt TEAM NOT A TEAM whinging.

  • SugarFree||

    More substantive analysis, I see. The glibness flows.

  • $park¥||

    whinging

    Why the fuck is it that NOBODY around here can properly spell whining?

  • WTF||

    No I think he was actually going for whinging.

  • nicole||

    I just assumed he was using the Brit version.

  • ||

    Same here, because that would be...very Tulpy-Poo.

  • ||

    I read it as idiotic affectation, sort of like how he writes "flerking" instead of "fucking".

  • SugarFree||

    He gets most of his cuss words from Dr. Who.

  • $park¥||

    I just assumed he was using the Brit version.

    I'm sure he'd say so after being called on spelling it wrong.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes, I was using the brit spelling. I've been watching too much Downtown Abbey recently.

  • Bam!||

    Downton Abbey, not Downtown

  • Tim||

    Yeah I think he would have.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Haha. My prediction about Reason and its gruppies attributing retroactively to Romney every horrid act that BO does is coming true.

  • $park¥||

    gruppies

    For fuck sake, Tulpa. I thought you were supposed to be some smart guy.

  • WTF||

    Maybe he meant guppies.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Correcting spelling is glub.

  • Zeb||

    I glubbed your mom.

  • Enough About Palin||

    And I helped!

  • Tim||

    Here's your sign

  • iggy||

    I'm so excited. Gun rights are to Democratic politicians what talking about rape is to Republican politicians. It's a surefire way to vaporize your political capital, but these idiots just cannot stop touching that third rail.

    If anything actually happens in regards to gun control, the Dems are going to get hammered at the midterm.

  • ||

    Yup. They just. Can't. Stop. Punching. Themselves. In. The. Head.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The beauty of this is that the Dems in Congress can claim they had nothing to do with it. And BO doesn't give a shit about elections anymore.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Gun control did more to cost Gore the election in 2000 than any hanging chad. If he had won his home state of Tennessee, Clinton's Arkansas, or West Virginia then he would have been president.

  • sloopyinca||

    OK, so maybe Romney's Libertarian Batting Average jumped a few points (because he's been silent, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, even though MA had strict gun control while he was governor and he never asked for a bill to repeal it), but he's still well below the Mendoza Line.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Empty rhetoric. Given the latest SCOTUS rulings, this sort of thing is well nigh impossible.

    Frankly, I think it would be good for liberty if Obama tried to do something blatantly illegal with guns. Because that's the sort of thing that might wake some people up.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    ProL, we've been getting blatantly-illegal-executive-action wake up calls for 12 years now. Yet we're still in the same Theraflu induced torpor.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, but, as you know, some things get people fired up, some don't. I'm actually mildly surprised that guns fall into this category, but it appears that they do.

  • SugarFree||

    but it appears that they do.

    They may enact something like the old assault weapons ban, which will burn a ton of political capital and not do a single thing about these types of incidents.

    From a utilitarian standpoint, Obama blowing his wad on a silly ban might be better in the long run that whatever else those assholes have cooking.

    Of course, Obama might view it as well spent, considering the ban will distract from the economy and give them a handy excuse for being gutted in the mid-terms.

  • db||

    I half expect Obama to order the ATF to begin field inspections of all FFLs' bound books to create a registry. Start with recent years and walk backward. This is the kind of thing that would be easier to do as an executive order without a lot of backlash, since it would just be turning the heat up slightly on our frog-in-a-pot.

  • Redmanfms||

    FOPA specifically prohibits exactly this behavior.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And FOPA is enforced by the DOJ.

    The courts could intervene after the fact, but once it's done it can't be undone. Maybe some FFLs would sue to avoid handing over the info to ATF, but most large chains probably wouldn't want to risk it.

  • Redmanfms||

    There would be a shitload of backlash, and it would be damn near instantaneous precisely because it would be so massively illegal and affect a large number of people.

    The BATFE tried keeping NICS records for greater than the legally-mandated limit of 30 days several years ago and got its proverbial dick handed to it by the courts.

  • db||

    It's like this: it is illegal for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to "maintain" a gun registry. The PA Supreme Court, however, has ruled that the State can continue to operate its existing registry (it predated the law that made it illegal) as long as it doesn't "maintain" it. Adding new records is just fine. But don't "maintain" it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I thought the argument was that it's legal because it's an incomplete listing of handguns (it doesn't include those bought in other states and brought to PA afterward). Which is totally orwellian since you could be in deep shit if you get pulled over carrying an unregistered gun you bought out of state and can't prove you bought it out of state.

  • bocomoj||

    An executive order is one thing. Start with actions like these, and we'll see civil war within our lifetimes.

  • Tim||

    "Frankly, I think it would be good for liberty if Obama tried to do something blatantly illegal with guns. Because that's the sort of thing that might wake some people up."

    Like "gunwalk" AK-47s to Mexico?

  • ||

    Are we taking things Joe Biden says seriously now?

  • SugarFree||

    Shh... there's TEAM points to be scored.

  • ||

    BIDEN SMASH

  • LTC(ret) John||

    OK, that made me laugh more than I expected - but I couldn't get the image of Slow Joe with a pair of those large, green foam rubber fists and a stupid grin on his face saying "BIDEN SMASH!" Then pawing an intern with them while trying to make a TSA joke.

  • ||

    That's kind of the image I had too, but my main thought was "Bizarro Hulk".

  • robc||

    Probably not, but I know Johnson wouldnt have.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Biden,

    "The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken."


    No there's not, you moron. Even in the wettest of lefty dreams, Obama cannot impose a prohibition on guns by executive order - it will be virtually impossible to enforce or even to defend on the courts.

    Biden is just performing his job as chief pet ape. He's throwing big sticks and dirt around, going back and forth trees, showing some teeth. That's it. In the end, the jungle will still be the same.

  • Brutus||

    The word I got was that Obama is going to reclassify certain semi-autos as NFA weapons, just like what Lloyd Bentsen did in 1993 with the Street Sweeper shotgun and a couple of others.

  • Generic Stranger||

    They only managed to do that with the "street sweeper" because the NFA classifies all firearms with bores larger than .50 caliber to be destructive devices, with exemptions for firearms designed for "sporting purposes", so all they had to do was revoke the "sporting purpose" exemption for those specific shotguns.

    They couldn't get away with doing the same thing for semi-auto rifles, because there's nothing in the NFA that would allow them to be reclassified.

  • Brutus||

    We'll see if they try, no?

  • Restoras||

    This really fucking sucks. Assholes.

  • ||

    All together now: ROMNEY AND RYAN WOULD HAVE DONE IT TOO!

    Yup and you voted for him.

    ...

    Stop hitting yourself Tulpa.

  • sloopyinca||

    Cuomo should be forced to live in a Chicago or Detroit ghetto for six months without the use of his armed bodyguards. He'd have a different view on the 2A if he did.

    It's odd that all of these "champions" of gun control have either armed guards or their own CCW permits that they want to keep from law-abiding people. Fuck each and every one of them and I'll be damned if they take my guns away.

  • sarcasmic||

    Cuomo should be forced to live in a Chicago or Detroit ghetto for six months without the use of his armed bodyguards. He'd have a different view on the 2A if he did.

    Really? I don't think so. If anything he'd want to eliminate it entirely and install a military run police state where anyone even suspected of having a weapon is shot on sight.

  • sloopyinca||

    OK, fine. He should be forced to do it by having his pigment darkened like C. Thomas Howell in this hilarious movie, and live like a black man in the war zones where the cops don't do a fucking thing to protect the residents. He'd change his tune really fast.

  • ||

    In Andrew's defense Mount Kisco is a pretty rough and tumble down. The man grew up fighting!

  • GILMORE||

    chappaqua is more thug than mt kisco

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not that I support any bans, but if you were going to do it out of public safety concerns it would be based on muzzle energy and rate of fire. The fact that they go after bayonet mounts and barrel shrouds just goes to show that either they don't know what they're talking about or are just interested in theatrics. Feinstein basing her bill on "looking at pictures of guns" is the epitome of this foolishness.

  • ||

    Scary looking guns are scary, mmmmk?

  • Drake||

    No way. Do you know how many people have been killed with bayonets, grenades, and pistol grips?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I mean, if they wanted to push a law banning semiauto rifles capable of firing projectiles with more than 1600 joules of energy, I would oppose that, but at least respect that they had done their homework.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Apropos of nothing, that comment reminds me of the Gauss rifle project my son and I built.

  • Brutus||

    So long M1 Garand! Not to mention most .30-06 deer rifles...

  • Generic Stranger||

    Most .30-06 deer rifles aren't semi-auto (the only one I can think of off hand besides the M1 is the Browning BAR).

    But yeah.

  • ||

    When I inherited a Remington 742 from my father (30.06 with 4 shot detachable magazine) the FIRST thing I did was buy a coupla' 10 round magazines for it. A detachable magazine and ZERO other listed attributes. Not scary looking at all... well, until you put the magazine in it.

    It would be legal under the proposed law, and pretty freakin' deadly.

    Knowing and understanding the law will make it easier to get around it.

    There is opportunity in chaos.

    CB

  • Drake||

    "Assault Weapon" is a meaningless term.

    Assault Rifle, on the other hand, is a specific term. They are medium-powered rifles - much less recoil and muzzle energy than that 30-06.

    A hunting or battle-rifle has much more power.

  • R C Dean||

    Assault Rifle, on the other hand, is a specific term.

    Not the way the grabbers are using it.

    from wiki:

    In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]
    It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
    It must be capable of selective fire;
    It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
    Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
    And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

  • ||

    That's because they say "assault rifle" when they really mean to use their made up "assault weapon" term.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Why assault weapon? Why not battery weapon?

  • ||

    Fuck if I know. Ask Joe Biden. He originally wrote the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" that was introduced by Rep. Jack Brooks in 1993.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.....cement_Act

  • SugarFree||

    Why assault weapon?

    The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military attack").

    Since "storm" as in "storm the castle" is the same concept in both languages, they really should be called STORM WEAPONS!

  • ||

    My favorite German weapons term is Fallschirmjägergewehr. "Fall-screen hunter rifle", or paratrooper's rifle.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Good, I feel less stupid for thinking that Sturm Ruger was a German brand.

  • IamNotEvil||

    That would confuse the greens because it could be electric/renewable. And they wouldn't know if it was evil or good.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Kind of off topic, but that reminds me of Remington's attempt to introduce electronically fired rifles. The theory was that using electricity to ignite the powder would reduce lock time to virtually nothing and hence increase accuracy, however there were concerns about reliability so it never took off.

  • Redmanfms||

    I remember this also. The concept has been used for a very long time in autocannons for very different reasons that improved lock time. Remington's gambit was sort of techno-porn, a solution in search of a problem.

    And the main reason it failed was because it would make conventional reloading (as in making your own cartridges) practically impossible, thus nullifying the appeal of their primary audience, benchresters, and the tech was retarded fucking expensive. Reliability may have been a concern, but cost was the major stumbling block.

    Besides, as I said above, gains were marginal/nonexistent.

  • Drake||

    I thought the grabbers had dropped "rifle" for "weapon" in order to do more grabbing?

  • Brendan||

    Yup. This lets them claim that they weren't just talking about rifles.

    They nearly always say "assault weapon", but will occasionally slip and say "assault rifle". They show nothing but pictures of two scary rifle types, AR and AK variants.

    Then, they introduce legislation to ban 'assault WEAPONS', a broad definition that includes the Walther P22 handgun (threaded barrel), semi-auto shotguns with a pistol grip, rifles with a folding stock, etc.

    I love that they call them 'weapons of war' or weapons 'designed for the battlefield'. I'm sure armies the world over would be surprised that a .22 semi-auto pistol is a 'weapon of war' if you add a threaded barrel to it.

    I find it equally amusing and disturbing that they have the audacity to question why we won't have a 'rational conversation' about their 'reasonable proposals.' and become surprisingly incredulous when we question their motives or integrity.

  • $park¥||

    Assault rifles suck. SMGs and pistols are way more accurate. Finding the eridium to upgrade your ammo carrying capacity can be tough though.

  • ||

    EXPLOSIONS?

  • Drake||

    Work on your battlefront skills.

  • SugarFree||

    Play the slot machines for Eridium. It is the best use for your money in the long run.

  • Drake||

    Tip the bit-titted bartender a lot.

  • Julant||

    Hell, if you want to really cheap it out, just run around Sanctuary opening every locker/washing machine/cardboard box, then quit out, start back up... rinse, repeat.
    Did this for about 30 minutes last night and got 21 Eridium - mostly from Crimson Knight HQ and the lockers above Skeeter's shop.

  • Tejicano||

    I don't play any computer games but SMG's in real life are just about useless compared to a real assault rifle or even a shotgun.

    I am a former Marine Grunt and the only reasons I own a registered SMG is because they are fun and I figured it would be a good investment (bought in 1986 for $650).

  • Pro Libertate||

    We need phasers. And "stun." That would solve some of this problem, because people aren't as scared of "stun."

    That would be useful in schools, too, even when not under attack. "If you don't behave, I'm going to stun you into your next class."

  • sloopyinca||

    Hell, cops at schools already do something similar when 10 y/o kids say they don't want to clean their cruiser.

    By the way, the officer received a 3-day suspension and did not face criminal A&B charges.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Well, we have tasers, and they stun people - usually. Also, with all the proposals to start having cops in all the schools, I'm sure they'll get used a lot, so there's that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, tasers are too uncertain and can be dangerous in some cases. We need more reliable stunning.

  • sloopyinca||

    I never understood the weaponry on Star Trek. The phasers were worthless because they were so difficult to aim accurately the way they were designed.

    Seriously, the accuracy of those things were awful. Star Wars weapons, on the other hand, were tits. Good layouts and sights, not to mention their stun setting sent out an array (see Leia getting captured) that stunned everything in it's range as opposed to simply a weaker "shot" like on Star Trek.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's bullshit. Stormtroopers miss everything using blasters. Kirk don't fucking miss.

  • tarran||

    The Stormtroopers got less effective with each minute of footage throughout the original trilogy.

    I blame gay marriage.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Fucking Ewoks. I'm glad they all died in the Endor holocaust.

  • SugarFree||

    I blame gay clone marriage.

  • Killazontherun||

    The stormtroopers are McPoyles?

  • Tim||

    You know what else he didn't miss?

  • Generic Stranger||

    I have a theory, which I just came up with, to explain their inaccuracy.

    When they set out to design the standard-issue imperial blasters, the Empire issued specs that it had to have a shotgun pattern. However, during development they found that the energy required to have several high-energy emitters to create the pattern on the same gun was too high, so they decided instead to have a single emitter that randomly changed its point of impact after every shot, and then gave it an extremely high firing rate in order to mimic a shotgun pattern.

    However, testing in the field revealed that the high rate of fire depleted the energy stores on the gun far too quickly, especially during protracted fire fights, while also causing a higher rate of equipment failure. So they decided to reduce their fire rates to a more manageable level. But the Empire failed to take into account that this would cause the weapon to simply be extremely inaccurate and much less effective. The weapon, though, was deemed good enough, since it met the original specifications, more or less, and all plans to fix the inaccuracy problem were deemed to be too expensive and become slogged down in the Empire's bureaucracy.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    And if naught else, fire the Death Star - kind of hard to miss with it, and it packs a serious punch.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I wonder if that big Death Star weapon had a stun setting? I mean, what if the Empire wants to do something other than blow a whole planet up?

  • Tim||

    If you want to blow a whole planet you set it to "Lindsey Lohan".

  • ||

    They never aimed, they always shot from the hip, literally. Don't look to Star Trek, ever, for any kind of real world accuracy. In anything. They probably aimed using tachyon fields or something.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The phaser self-aimed using AI, of course.

  • Killazontherun||

    Likely no need to aim except in the facing direction when using phasers. I imagine that it would not be difficult to auto track where the beam should go with the targets body heat. Hostage situations might, of course, be a problem. Then you bring out the Vulcan death grip.

  • nicole||

    They never aimed, they always shot from the hip, literally.

    I was noticing this just the other day, and thinking that it must be where gun control folks got their ideas about pistol grips being so dangerous.

  • robc||

    Picard and Riker dodged phaser fire. It was moving that slow.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I assumed they started dodging once the phaser was pointed at them.

  • robc||

    I assumed they started dodging once the phaser was pointed at them.

    The specific incident Im thinking of, it was fired, then they dodge.

  • Brendan||

    I FUCKING HATE THE COMMENT SYSTEM-it keeps eating my comments and making me login again.

    Anyhoo, the star trek phasers moved slow enough to see the beam move.

    I'm sure by then, the federation was full of nothing but Feinsteins who made sure the subject citizens couldn't possess 'assault phasers'-phaser rifles with pistol grips or energy packs with more than 10MJ of capacity and no kill or vaporize settig, stun only.

    I liked DS9, they had scenes of the doctor field stripping his M16 phaser rifle and handing out magazines power packs, as well having a ridiculous scene with the former Jewish Bajoran freedom fighter explaining how AK47 Cardassian phaser rifles could be dragged through mud and stiil fire, while the M16 starfleet phaser rifles were a little more balanced and accurate.

  • $park¥||

    If you need sights to aim a fucking laser, you probably shouldn't be firing a fucking laser.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Lasers? Who is talking about lasers? Why are you always on about lasers?

  • Killazontherun||

    Because lasers are pretty fucking cool, like this:

    http://ces.cnet.com/8301-34441.....-are-here/

  • SugarFree||

    Are SW blasters lasers? If they they have the tech to fire a single beam of light that is only a meter or so long, you'd think they's have better weapons in general.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Those were plasma filaments IIRC.

  • SugarFree||

    Apparently, some are lasers, some are combined plasma and laser "bolts" and others are "particle beams."

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Blaster

  • ||

    Considering any kind of high albedo will totally neuter a laser, wouldn't plasma weapons be more sensible? Also, sometimes there really is no substitute for a ballistic weapon. Mass times velocity equals SMASH.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think firearms are going anywhere in the foreseeable future. Not for small portable arms anyway.

  • Lord Humungus||

    The Ewoks would have really paid the price if the frickin' stormtroopers had M16s and M60s.

  • Brendan||

    By the time any gun ban would have worked and we're firearm free, we'll be deep into phased plasma rifle technology anyway.

  • Agammamon||

    Plasma weapons are useless.

    http://www.projectrho.com/publ.....exotic.php

    Scroll waaay down to the plasma weaponry discussion - the gist is that plasma weapons are really just very poor flamethrowers.

  • Agammamon||

    Mirrored materials alone wouldn't do much against a laser.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I thought they were unlicensed particle accelerators.

  • sloopyinca||

    Haha. Sparky thinks Imperial Stormtroopers fired lasers.

  • SugarFree||

    Standard-issue for Imperial stormtroopers, the E-11 could alternate between semiautomatic, fully automatic and pulse-fire settings, and was designed to use a variety of ammunition, including grenades, darts, and flares. A computer enhanced scope compensated for dark, hazy, or smoky conditions, while a supplementary computer enabled the scope to display data specific to the weapon's current operating mode. The E-11's long barrel produced a tightly focused and very powerful particle beam, and had a maximum range of three hundred meters and an optimum range of one hundred meters.

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/E-11_blaster_rifle

  • db||

    Actually, they were just xressed up Sterling MKIV submachineguns. Which are pretty much the sweetest, easiest to shoot SMGs ever. Suck it, H&K.

  • $park¥||

    Haha. Sparky thinks Imperial Stormtroopers fired lasers.

    I was responding to your comment about Star Trek, nutsack.

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, well in that case:

    Haha. Sparky thinks Starfleet Officers will fire lasers.*

    Actually, the comment was directed at the overall nerdery of the entire subthread, myself included. And I would have directed it at Pro Lib but I'm afraid he'd send me a gift card to some deep-dish restaurant And if I sent it to SF, he'd put a curse on me with some chicken bones and his filthy blood in some bizarre voodoo ritual.

  • SugarFree||

    And if I sent it to SF, he'd put a curse on me with some chicken bones and his filthy blood in some bizarre voodoo ritual.

    Damn straight.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Hey, voodoo pizza. Has it been done?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    LOL. It would be funny if some sci-fi show had a laser sight mounted to the laser gun. That actually would make sense if you don't want to destroy the stuff around what you're shooting at.

  • SugarFree||

    The quantum cascade laser pistols and rifles in Neal Asher's books come close. The trigger is pressure sensitive; lightly pulling the trigger causes the beam to emit with just enough power to light up a target.

    Of course, certain weapons in Borderlands 2 are closer to the absurdity of your idea: They have laser sights that are only visible as a line that extends a few feet from below the barrel and don't light up a target when you look down the sights.

  • ||

    Asher's proton rifles are pretty badass. And the plasma SMG I have in Borderlands is absurd in terms of physics, yet is absurdly awesome for burning down enemies.

  • $park¥||

    the plasma SMG I have in Borderlands is absurd in terms of physics, yet is absurdly awesome for burning down enemies

    I still haven't found a fire SMG with a damage more than 50. I got Bane and used it for all of 5 seconds before switching to something else.

  • Agammamon||

    Mount the laser sight *inside* the gun - both it and your targeting optics can use a most of the laser's optical path.

  • ||

    And before I hit the hay, I feel the need to point out not one of you said the iconic, "Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range."

    I'm shocked and thoroughly appalled....

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Just what you see, buddy.

  • R C Dean||

    Pish.

    Partway through Hydrogen Sonata, and believe me, after the frank exchange of views on the archive orbital, I'm convinced you don't want to bring a firearm (ballistic, laser, particle beam, it don't matter) to a knife missile fight.

    [Mental note: name next warship the Frank Exchange of Views]

  • ||

    I just finished it last night. The orbital fight was pretty good but what the Mistake Not... does at the end of the book is extremely badass as well. NO SPOILERS.

    Messing with a Culture Offensive Unit of any kind is sort of dangerous, whether it be a GOU, ROU, LOU, or even a supposedly demilitarized Very Fast Picket.

  • SugarFree||

    RC,

    The guy who runs the airship party is how I've always pictured Warty.

  • SugarFree||

    Oh, and Frank Exchange of Views was a Psychopath class dROU in Excession.

  • R C Dean||

    With rotating eyeballs?

  • SugarFree||

    Covered in penises.

  • nicole||

    Male glaze?

  • ||

    THAT'S DISGUSTING NICOLE

    And therefore hilarious.

  • nicole||

    I wish I could take credit. In fact I've spent the whole day hating myself for not being the one to think of it.

  • Agammamon||

    It is difficult to fight against someone who's *expendible* munitions are almost as smart as you are.

  • ||

    Almost? Even knife missiles have full sentience, don't they?

  • SugarFree||

    Even knife missiles have full sentience, don't they?

    It varies, but most of them are not considered at full human parity, being "sub-minds" of their parent drones. Make them too smart and they might develop morals.

  • Agammamon||

    Knife missiles are self-aware but they have a less than human level intelligence.

  • Agammamon||

    I love how, when I make a comment, I end up at a random point on the page that is close to neither my comment nor what I'm responding to.

  • R C Dean||

    That, plus the anti-matter projectiles.

    Oh, and Frank Exchange of Views was a Psychopath class dROU in Excession.

    Should have known. One of the fun things about his books is the names.

    I kind of miss the utterly paranoid, insanely armed "Interesting Times Group" from Excession.

    And very much please, no spoilers.

  • ||

    Here's the ship name list, RC. With type.

  • ||

    I'm partial to Me, I'm Counting.

  • Gray Ghost||

    (I said, I've got a big stick.) (parentheses indicating tiny font) is one of mine. The main one from Surface Detail, "Falling Outside the Normal Moral Constraints." is a winner too.

  • SugarFree||

    What Are The Civilian Applications?

  • SugarFree||

    And very much please, no spoilers.

    What? I'm no monster, sir!

    John Barnes had some nice handguns in his Timeline Wars series. They fired tiny self-propelled bullets that hit Mach 10 about two feet out of the barrel, and were smart enough to find skulls and spiral to a halt inside. And they could grow their own ammunition from raw materials.

  • ||

    In The Practice Effect, the main character has a gun where you can put any piece of metal that will fit in the grip and it will shave off pieces of it and fire them at high velocity using gas pressure. Now, I have to assume the gun does something to provide stability like reshaping the metal to be more ballistically stable and then rifling it, but he doesn't mention anything.

  • ||

    The Terminator: Phased plasma rifle in the 40 Watt range.
    Shopkeeper: Hey, just what you see, pal.

  • Ted S.||

    None of the weapons ever seemed to have any recoil, either.

  • ||

    There's no denying this is something.

    Yes. And? Isn't "doing something" all that's necessary to get re-elected?

  • ||

    It is in NY!

  • Killazontherun||

    To think I considered Andrew Cuomo to be the DNCs Great White Hope in 2016. What kind of echo chamber do they have in Albany that he doesn't know he'll never make it nationally, now?

    Who else do they have at this point? A highly compromised Hillary? Guess they better start working on over turning that amendment. Maybe this time with an executive order.

  • WTF||

    It doesn't matter. If the republicans couldn't beat Obama with his dismal record of the past four years, I don't see how they ever win the Whitehouse in the near future.

  • ||

    That's pretty much what the Dems thought in '04.

  • WTF||

    Different electorate. The dems have been steadily building a 'moar free stuff' constituency of dependency. It will take decades to disintegrate.

  • Killazontherun||

    Much like you I strongly agree they are pretty much fucked, brand is damaged for at least a generation like K-Marts in too many significant areas of country, there exist very few checks on voter fraud, groups that actively and publicly advocate fraud even get federal funding, F-U-C-K-E-D for the GOP. However, that doesn't mean the Dhimmis can't shoot themselves in the foot and ignite passion against them. A minority can get its way when they are much more energized than the other side. A grabber candidate will ignite just that. Obama avoided the issue during his first term. He told the director of the Brady Campaign that they had to be more stealthy in their approach to gun control due to the political climate. Every time an event occurred he would say all the right things with words like 'sensible' thrown in and quickly push it to the side. Cuomo is not even going to be that astute.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Cuomo hasn't been that bad from the fiscal POV, especially for a Dem. Supporting an assault weapons ban didn't hurt BO.

  • ||

    I don't see how this will remotely tarnish his image.

  • ||

    It makes it real easy to run against him on gun issues.

    This will likely matter in a handful of states in play:

    Ohio
    Virginia
    North Carolina
    Florida
    Colorado
    Nevada.

  • ||

    Why? It's not an outright ban. It's a loosey-goosey ban on "something". It placates the "something must be done" crowd and has an incredibly limited impact on the real world of gun transactions.

  • ||

    Doesn't matter, it puts him on the wrong side of the issue.

    On the other side is a highly motivated group with more numbers in the states I mentioned.

    The optics are not good for him since it will likely be viewed as just the next step in the plan for total confiscation.

    After all, he isn't satisfied with the current ban, what makes you think he wont call for "tougher" measures once this one fails to achieve its desired effect?

  • OldMexican||

    I just want to meet pretty Thai girls. Leave me alone.

  • BuSab Agent||

    This is an admirable goal.

  • Ted S.||

    OK, we'll leave you alone.

  • IceTrey||

    I haven't seen anything that tells us conclusively that the Bushmaster was even used in the killing. The last I heard they found it in the trunk of a car in the parking lot. It's one of the strange "facts" about the case. Where are the pictures of the door he apparently shot through? Where are the pictures of 600 children evacuating the school? Why were the EMT's not allowed in to help the victims? Who declared all the victims deceased? Why did the medical examiner only personally examine 7 of the children and give such a weird press conference? Just like Aurora many unanswered questions surrounding the event.

  • ||

    Shit, I didn't know Prof. Tracy posted here.

  • Drake||

    I think it was a semi-auto Saga shotgun that was in the trunk.

    The lack of details and missing Coroner's report is very odd. In the close quarters of a school, the choice of pistol or rifle makes little difference. That 10mm pistol was probably the deadliest (per shot) weapon he had. It also may be why he was wearing ear-plugs.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It also may be why he was wearing ear-plugs.

    Calls for ban of assault ear plugs in 4, 3, 2, ...

  • Redmanfms||

    That 10mm pistol was probably the deadliest (per shot) weapon he had.

    Deadlier than an AR?

    Do you know anything about ballistics?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The muzzle energy is lower but it would be more maneuverable.

  • Drake||

    I sure do. At close range on unarmored targets, little difference.

  • Redmanfms||

    I sure do. At close range on unarmored targets, little difference.

    Clearly, you don't.

    The type of target and its distance is irrelevant to the "power" of a weapon.

  • Redmanfms||

    Change "power" to "deadliness"

  • sloopyinca||

    Not picking nits here, but if I'm in close quarters wrestling with someone, a 10 mm pistol is a lot more deadly than a long rifle, seeing as I can grab it, point it and discharge it in the direction I want while still locked in a struggle. That's much less unlikely and therefore much less deadly with an AR-15.

  • Redmanfms||

    Not picking nits back, but you quite obviously have never had any retention training with firearms AT ALL if you believe that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Training probably makes a difference, but I seriously doubt Adam Lanza had retention training.

  • sloopyinca||

    No, I really haven't, so I'll concede you that. But doesn't common sense say that the weapon you are able to unholster and fire more readily is more deadly than the one you are unlikely to even get pointed in the general vicinity of your target?

    Again, my statement is based on having no firearms retention training, which would also apply to the vast majority of firearms users.

  • Redmanfms||

    Again, my statement is based on having no firearms retention training, which would also apply to the vast majority of firearms users.

    Which is precisely why you think it "common sense" that drawing and firing a pistol with retention while wrestling with somebody is quicker than aiming and firing a rifle. And why so much stupid bullshit comes out of the mouths of uninformed neophytes in the firearms world. Indexing a rifle carried at low port is a whole lot quicker than withdrawing a pistol from its holster, indexing, then firing by the way.

    This conversation is getting far off into the weeds anyway because Lanza wasn't wrestling anybody and already had his weapon "at the ready."

  • Redmanfms||

    No offense intended dude.

  • sloopyinca||

    None taken.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Isn't it a lot easier for an assailant at extremely close range to get a semi-auto pistol out of battery, than it would be to do the same to an AR? Not that either has a great chance of success, especially if the assailant is 6.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most of the children killed within one classroom? And wouldn't they be dead whether he brought an AR or a bolt action deer rifle with an internal magazine? I mean, they had no way out of the classroom, they weren't going to be able to rush him if he reloaded, and he had more than enough time to shoot everyone before the cops came, so what's the difference in what he used?

  • GILMORE||

    this is easily the most retarded tangent when you remember the people being shot were mostly 4yr olds

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    But doesn't common sense say that the weapon you are able to unholster and fire more readily is more deadly than the one you are unlikely to even get pointed in the general vicinity of your target?

    "Common sense" might say that, but it's hard to argue that Lanza displayed anything of the sort during his brief life. This was a severely socially maladapted nerd who holed himself up in his crazy mother's basement. How often do you see these types displaying anything resembling common sense?

  • IceTrey||

    I've heard NOTHING about a Saiga shotgun.

  • ||

    "CBS News has reported that Adam Lanza had a Saiga shotgun in the trunk of the car he drove to the school - the only one of four guns he possessed that he did not bring inside."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-20.....-nra-plan/

  • ||

    That 10mm pistol was probably the deadliest (per shot) weapon he had.

    For fuck's sake, dude. Familiarize yourself with Fackler's work.

  • Drake||

    Here a 10mm in gelatin:
    http://brassfetcher.com/index_files/10mmAuto.htm

    Here is .223 (out of a longer barreled weapon):
    http://brassfetcher.com/index_.....ington.htm

    The 10mm obviously make a bigger hole. The .223 has more energy, causes more hydrostatic shock, and might tumble. Or, it might make a neat hole and keep on going. Depends on the ammo.

    Does it really matter when used on an unarmed child at close range?

  • Redmanfms||

    The 10mm obviously make a bigger hole.

    Since there is absolutely nothing in these pics to indicate either scale or size of permanent wound channel I'm really curious what makes you think the above statement is factual.

    causes more hydrostatic shock

    Yeesh.

  • ||

    This is why one should read Dr. Fackler.

  • Gray Ghost||

    causes more hydrostatic shock

    I get the groan of disapproval, but is there a better term for describing the additional tissue damage that occurs from cavitation from a bullet going over, (IIRC) 2500 fps or so? I know it's not the 'hydrostatic shock' that was supposed to percolate through a body after impact and shut down the CNS, but something is qualitatively different about impacts above that speed within tissue.

    I'm not sure whether it makes a difference in the case of a 6 year old, but centerfire rifles, even poodle shooters, are qualitatively more deadly than all but the largest handguns (thinking something that comes out of a Contender, or maybe .500 SW Magnum)

    From this article about the Coroner's press conference, the Coroner claimed that the wounds came from the .223 rifle. I'm not sure how you could definitively say such, so fast, but that's what the man claimed.

  • Redmanfms||

    but is there a better term for describing the additional tissue damage that occurs from cavitation from a bullet going over, (IIRC) 2500 fps or so?

    Fackler and Roberts have shown definitively that, in fact, "cavitation" (or whatever you want to call it), is not actually a wounding mechanism because of the elasticity of most human tissues.

    Seriously, read the PDF proffered by Warty above.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I've read it, and have cited to it before. I find it far more persuasive than the efforts of, say Marshall and Sanow. I disagree that ballistic gelatin is a one-to-one simulant of body tissue; we just use it because we can---more or less---make it a consistent media for visualizing bullet impacts and their consequential effects. (Certainly more consistent, and less controversial, than testing bullets on people or goats.) OTOH, he's the one with the giant C.V. and the PhD, not me.

    Actually, he does mention cavitation, leading to tissue destruction through tissue stretch, as one of the means of wounding, particularly if the bullet fragments and thereby "providing points of weakness on which the stretch is focused rather than being absorbed evenly by the tissue mass" (at 6); he just discounts it heavily and states that crush damage from a large, slow moving projectile, is much more effective. O.K., I can get behind the idea that disruption of tissue within the permanent wound cavity is more effective than within the temporary wound cavity. The tissue's no longer there, for one thing.

    In any event, I'm not trying to claim that 5.56 is deadlier than 7.62 x 51 (though I would argue that a fragmenting high velocity 5.56 would be, versus a non-fragmenting 7.62). I'm stating that even the lowliest of rifles are deadlier than all but the biggest of handguns---including 10mm Auto---and the reason is the much greater velocity of rifle bullets.

  • Redmanfms||

    I'm stating that even the lowliest of rifles are deadlier than all but the biggest of handguns---including 10mm Auto---and the reason is the much greater velocity of rifle bullets.

    I concur.

  • ||

    Certainly more consistent, and less controversial, than testing bullets on people or goats.

    Thousands of animals are shot by hunters every fucking year by all sorts of fire arms.

    The fact that he did not look at hunter kills makes me think he is an imbecile and should be ignored.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Gelatin's more consistent than animal tissue, and a hell of a lot more consistent than anecdotes from hunters. The goats crack was a reference to the notorious Strasbourg Tests. Which I'm not sure demonstrated much of anything.

    All I was trying to say was that I'm not sure you can translate Fackler's cracks in gelatin to shear in living tissue---a shock wave that would result in cracking gelatin may do nothing in tissue, and the opposite might be true. From my own extremely limited experience, something happens to tissue when it's near a strike by a projectile over 2600 FPS. It isn't within the permanent wound cavity, yet the tissue turns almost to jello. Many of you deer hunters have also experienced the phenomena of "shocked meat." I don't believe that you see the same effect from handgun wounds.

  • Restoras||

    Could you please directme to the nearest poodle shooting preserve?

  • Killazontherun||

    OT. Some will accuse him of pandering but what they don't know is Aqua Buddha is ensconced directly behind that rock.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ysWu.....60113+005+

  • OldMexican||

    It is not clear what the Times means by "high-powered rifles."


    JFC - an old Mosin-Nagant 91/30 is a "high-powered" rifle for anybody that's standing on the business end of it.

    Clearly you don't need one to hunt. Just a stick, some cord and knapped flint, if they don't ban those as well.

  • Drake||

    They mean "scary". Any further research on the topic is too icky to contemplate.

  • Zeb||

    And they don't realize that all of the hunting rifles they promise not to take away are way more high powered than an .223 "assault rifle".

  • Restoras||

    Come on now, that would require actual dispassionate examination of the issue.

    I wonder if these asshats cling to the word "assault" because it sounds bad, and is also a part of their legalistic worldview.

  • Virginian||

    No, and this is why I hate the goddamn Elmer Fudds so much. The moment they succeed in taking my "assault weapons" and the "high capacity magazines" in my pistol, they're going to come after deer rifles. Except they won't be deer rifles, they'll be "sniper rifles".

    They will not fucking stop. Why would they? It's worked for them with everything else. Every week they take another slice off the salami, loudly complaining about the obstructionists. Then they're back for more. They never give any back, but they never stop complaining about how unfair it is that the rest of the people won't compromise with them.

  • BakedPenguin||

    "We must do something. This is something. therefore, we must do this."

  • Ken Shultz||

    Some people like bowling.

    Some people play poker.

    Andrew Cuomo stays up late every night trying to think of new and better ways to express his disapproval of rednecks.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Has anybody else seen this video?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qwXO-KTVxk

    I'm not sure I understand why anybody would want to make such a thing except maybe just to see if you can.

  • ||

    You probably wouldn't understand climbing the mountain either, Ken. You poor man.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I was going to drop some Augustine of Hippo quote from the City of God about climbing a mountain, but I can't remember it.

  • Redmanfms||

    Machine pistols are fairly popular in some places for use on protection details.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Yeah, mostly because of their compactness and high rate of fire, but that drum mag kind of ruins the "compactness" part...

  • sarcasmic||

    Someone likes to buy ammo. That was what, sixty bucks burned off in eight seconds?

  • ||

    If any of you bother to read the Times article, don't even bother looking at the comments. There's no rational thought there. And considering the article they're responding to, that's saying something.

  • An0nB0t||

    We're living in a remarkable period of historically low violence. We have more and better guns than ever. Research accepted by both sides of the political isle demonstrates that gun control is a miserable failure and that liberal carry at the very least does not increase crime and likely reduces it. The "assault weapon" ban proved to be pointless and worthless, and the Supreme Court has crushed the nannies with two historic rulings. Every ounce of evidence and reason indicates that the illiberal policies followed by the social democrats here and overseas leave their citizens vulnerable to attack, and law is turning against them in a big way.

    When a flat-earther discovers that the world is a sphere, his only possible responses are to change his mind or to wallow in hysteria and rage.

    As for Obama, if that miserable fuck does monkey with the availability of firearms, he'll go down in history as the ass who destroyed the economy, the murderer of a 16-year-old American, and the guy who convinced the Supreme Court to start paying attention to executive abuse.

  • John||

    I am always amazed at how ignorant of history these people are. The firearm has been the greatest engine of freedom in human history. Before the invention of firearms warfare was essentially marshal arts. It required the wealth to be able to devote your full time attention to it. A group of armed trained knights on horses were essentially untouchable except by other knights. The average person stood no chance. The world was ruled by the young, rich and violent. Actual popular revolts were very rare and almost never succeeded. That all changed because of firearms.

  • sarcasmic||

    Actual popular revolts were very rare and almost never succeeded. That all changed because of firearms.

    Why do you think the ruling class (and the idiots who trust them) wants to disarm the public?

  • Julant||

    Hitler called... he said he wants his training manual back.

  • ||

    Untouchable except to, say, a company of pikemen or an English archer with bodkin arrows and a longbow with a 120-150 pound draw weight, both of which required a lifetime of training to use. There's a reason why the first thing Tokugawa did after he won his civil war was to close off Japan's borders and get rid of all the guns.

  • John||

    Few people could shoot a bow to the required accuracy. And when guns were first invented, the aristocracy hated them.

  • Generic Stranger||

    The pike didn't require that much training to use (pikemen were often conscripted soldiers), but it suffered from being somewhat unmaneuverable, and of course pikemen were vulnerable to archers and musketeers.

  • Gray Ghost||

    A pike didn't take that much training to use, but staying together in a phalanx, or infantry square, or tercio certainly did. Especially if they were being charged by cavalry.

    The funny thing about Warty's comment is that Japan arguably had the finest musketeers in the world after Sekigahara, and shit-canned the lot of them, rather than keep them and potentially lose their feudal system.

  • R C Dean||

    I am always amazed at how ignorant of history these people are. The firearm has been the greatest engine of freedom in human history.

    I suspect they aren't ignorant of history at all, and that is exactly why guns are so heavily restricted in so many countries, and why so many in this country want more restrictions.

  • ||

    Most of these people aren't very bright. They don't think that far. The gun has become a simplified symbol for power, whether it be the power to defend yourself, the power to be able to own one legally, etc. Statists and other people who love CONTROL see empowerment as extremely bad; how do you control empowered people? So take away the symbols of power, like guns, the right to do what you want with your property, etc.

    Remember: it's all about CONTROL.

  • Killazontherun||

    What is so hard for them to grasp that when you go after my right of self defense, you forfeit your own?

    Gun control is an aggression.

  • sarcasmic||

    Remember: it's all about CONTROL.

    "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." -Heinlein's Lazarus Long
  • T o n y||

    The ability to kill politicians on a whim is not "freedom."

    You do not have the right to armed insurrection. If there ever comes a time when a popular revolt is actually necessary, it's not something you should be thankful for, because there will be a lot of blood.

    Sometimes I think you people are just downright psychotic.

  • John||

    Tony, you really are the dumbest person I have ever met. Seriously, how do you feed yourself. I would tell you to read the actual history of the middle ages and see how oppressive and awful the armed groups of thugs that posed as aristocrats actually were, but you are so stupid an incapable of higher reasoning, you would never understand any of it.

  • ||

    Did you ever read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court? If not, you should.

  • John||

    That is a good one.

  • Restoras||

    John, it's a sock, and a rather stiff one at that. It is incapable of being stupid, or anything else. It simply craves responses.

  • WTF||

    Restoras is right. I actually used to waste time responding to it, then realized no real person could be so incredibly stupid and dishonest, and now I just ignore it.

  • John||

    actually used to waste time responding to it, then realized no real person could be so incredibly stupid and dishonest,

    I am pretty sure Joe from Lowell is real. And I am completely sure he is that incredibly stupid and dishonest.

  • WTF||

    Well, okay, I'll concede Joe.

  • T o n y||

    A situation that is relevant to modern-day USA how?

  • ||

    A situation that is relevant to modern-day USA how?

    Modern antibiotics frees us from the deadly effects of infection....

    Tony notices this and decides we should outlaw antibiotics because the deadly effects of infection have been averted.

  • sarcasmic||

    I can assume then that if you were around during the Revolutionary War, that your chimney would have been painted white with a black band at the top?

  • Agammamon||

    Yes, I do have a right to armed insurrection.

    If we didn't have that right, then we'd still be english.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You only have the right to insurrection if you win.

    "Treason doth never prosper,
    What's the reason?
    For if it prosper,
    None dare call it Treason."

    -- Sir John Harrington

  • ||

    If my choice is living under tyranny, or experiencing a bloody popular revolt that shakes off that tyranny, I'll choose the latter every time.

    Should firearms be the mechanism that makes it possible, I shall be quite thankful for their existence.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You forgot about the "bloody revolt that fails to shake off tyranny", which is far more likely. And has the added benefit of killing off all opponents of the tyranny.

  • ||

    I'll still take that over Thoreau's "life of quiet desperation."

  • Zeb||

    It would suck. You are right. But if it is actually necessary, you'll be glad to have the guns anyway. One could also make the argument that an armed populace makes it far less likely that the situation will ever require armed insurrection.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "You do not have the right to armed insurrection."

    When in the course of .... oh, damn, the United States of America...we're illegitimate!

  • barfman2013||

    You do not have the right to armed insurrection.

    *barf*

  • T||

    to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

  • Julant||

    I was somewhat surprised to see that it took this many comments before someone pissed on Tony's campfire with the Declaration of Independence. Granted, we're dealing with a sock, so the general consensus was probably just to be dismissive rather than substantive.

  • Killazontherun||

    OT, but for John.

    Your favorite old game has been remade for the web browser.

    http://creativejs.com/2012/11/dune-2-online/

    I've heard talk of a third installment in the works but have not pinned down my sources.

  • John||

    That is awesome. Thanks.

  • T o n y||

    30,000 gun deaths a year is a period of low violence?

  • sarcasmic||

    30,000 dead guns? What a shame!

  • John||

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj.....rtbl08.xls

    That would be 12,000 murders using firearms in 2010 and the number has declined since then/

    Stop lying you ignorant little brown shirt. Being stupid is annoying enough but you can't help it. But there is no excuse for lying.

  • ||

    You'll have to pardon TONY, he think the 19000 gun suicides would have been prevented if only guns were gone.

  • T o n y||

    Many of them obviously would have. Why use a gun if there are equally easy methods that don't require getting your hands on a gun and making a giant mess?

  • ||

    LOL. Because you don't have to clean up the giant mess?

  • KPres||

    "LOL. Because you don't have to clean up the giant mess?"

    Caught that too. There's definitely a gay joke in there somewhere.

  • Zeb||

    People who commit suicide aren't generally thinking too rationally, or giving much of a shit about who has to clean up after.

  • Brutus||

    Yeah, thank God there aren't any guns in Japan. That's why they have such a low suicide rate.

  • T o n y||

    Oh only 12,000 murders. Three 9/11s. Nothing to see here. Let's ignore the issue and move on.

  • T o n y||

    Er, four 9/11s. Maybe we should just invade four Middle Eastern countries that have nothing to do with the matter.

  • ||

    We'll call it "Winning hearts and minds!" Brilliant, T o n y, its almost like you can see inside the mind of our current and former Presidents!

  • ||

  • KPres||

    "Oh only 12,000 murders."

    Well, Democrats own 40% of guns, and based on demographics, probably commit a much higher percentage than that of the murders, say maybe 60%.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/150.....-1993.aspx

    So seriously, let's just ban guns for Democrats. Everybody wins. Democrats get a much more sweeping ban than they'd hoped for, gun deaths will surely fall by more than any of the other proposed "solutions", and everybody else gets to keep their guns. It's perfect.

  • An0nB0t||

    D-. Michael Bay material. You provide a valuable service to the community by allowing us to keep our claws sharp, but you've been going through a rough patch of late. If your spirit of sockpuppetry is waning, there are probably a few of us who would be willing to spell you every now and then.

    And if you're open to suggestions, you might try priming the outrage pump by creating another login and then lobbying horrific insults at yourself in the hopes that others will follow suit. Though you may do that already. The ingenuity of the Reason sockpuppets is hugely impressive.

  • robc||

    OT: No one elected by writers to the HOF.

    There will be no live inductees this year. VC elected Jacob Ruppert (owner), Hank O'Day (umpire), and Deacon White, who last played in the majors in 1890.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That should make for an interesting ceremony. It probably won't be hard to get good seats.

    I went for Andre Dawson's induction and it was packed.

  • robc||

    And it will only get worse next year. More quality candidates means more vote splitting (due to 10 slots max on ballot) means even harder to get to 75%.

    Maddux should make it next year, but Im not sure anyone else does.

  • John||

    The jackass writers are going to completely destroy the Hall of Fame. People are just going to stop caring about it if they haven't already.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    SABR needs to start their own HoF.

  • John||

    That would be even worse. A HOF of fat guys who walked all of the time. Oh look son, it is the Moe Vaughn wing.

  • KDN||

    That would be even worse. A HOF of fat guys who walked all of the time. Oh look son, it is the Moe Vaughn wing.

    There are 205 players in the HOF. I guarantee that if you were to get a committee straight from SABR to rank the best players of all time 1 - 205 (based on identical eligibility with the current hall) you would end up with more steals, runs, and excitement than in our current hall (especially since Rock Raines is a shoo-in for a SABR Hall). You're about 10 year behind the times with that ridiculous stereotype.

  • albo||

    How many of those poor children in Newtown were killed by a flash suppressor?

  • BuSab Agent||

    As many as were killed by a bayonet lug or a barrel shroud.

  • Almanian.||

    It was the folding stock that done 'em in.

  • GILMORE||

    NOT THE PISTOL GRIP!!!! IT BURRRNSSSS!!!!!! AAGGHHHGAGGAGAG

  • John||

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....130108#a=1

    Actual pictures of a giant squid.

  • sarcasmic||

    Saw that on the DM the other say but didn't put it into the links.

    Next time I see sea-pron I'll include it for your fapping pleasure.

  • sarcasmic||

    *day

  • Almanian.||

    DAAAAAAAAAAAAY oh! DAyayayay oh!

  • SugarFree||

    The nightmare corpse-city of R'lyeh was built in measureless eons behind history by the vast, loathsome shapes that seeped down from the dark stars. There lay great Cthulhu and his hordes, hidden in green slimy vaults.
  • ||

    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

  • BuSab Agent||

    That's what she said!

  • Tejicano||

    I guess she wasn't a swallower...

  • Killazontherun||

    Sugarfree, have you read Fatale, a crime noir comic centered around an Elder God mythos. First volume is excellent. Given that I bought the pdf, I guess I can email it to you and erase the original from my hard drive. That would be totally legit, right?

  • SugarFree||

    I suppose... Nah, I buy tons of stuff. I'll look into it.

  • sarcasmic||

    I mean, I knew you were into beached whales, but squid?

  • T o n y||

    Your guys' position is we can do absolutely nothing whatsoever about gun regulations, and it's best not to even talk about it, and that tens of thousands of gun deaths in the US is just the price of freedom, the end, yet it's people advocating for modest changes to gun policy in response to such horrifying data who are the scary ones?

  • SugarFree||

    No, our position is "Fuck off, sockpuppet."

  • Restoras||

    SugarFree nails it. Stop responding to it, people.

  • Brutus||

    Irrefutable.

  • John||

    There are not tens of thousands of gun deaths in this country every year. and you know it, you lying little fascist.

  • ||

    Don't fucking respond to it. Can't you smell how badly and desperately it wants attention? Ignore it, and you get a sad sockpuuppet.

  • An0nB0t||

    You seem to know a lot about sockpuppets.

    ...

  • T o n y||

    Gun violence in the United States.

    More than 30,000 gun deaths in 2009. You probably don't want to include the roughly half of gun deaths that are suicides, but I don't see why that stat should be totally ignored.

    Because that's what you want us to do about everything regarding guns and gun violence: ignore everything, right? Because you are fanatics. What's sad is that you were made into fanatics by the media you watch. Media trying to deflect the blame onto video games and movies while simultaneously issuing dire paranoid warnings of the liberal fascist takeover just around the corner.

  • sarcasmic||

    More than 30,000 gun deaths in 2009.

    How did the guns die? Was it old age? Were they melted? How does this happen?

  • John||

    Counting suicides is completely dishonest. Those people would have just killed themselves in other ways. Do you want to ban kitchen knives and tall buildings too? They are used for suicides.

    You are a lying sick fascist Tony.

  • sarcasmic||

    Those people would have just killed themselves in other ways.

    I dunno. It's a lot easier to squeeze a trigger than to cut yourself or jump off a building. At least that's the argument.

    Then again if you have really and truly decided to end your life, nothing short of a straightjacket and rubber room will stop you.

  • WTF||

    Japan has a higher suicide rate that we do, and they have pretty much banned guns.

  • ||

    NOT POSSIBLE.

    TONY swears that people wont kill themselves without firearms.

    Don't you see? Removing firearms will also fix many of our mental health issues.

    People aren't committing suicide, they're being killed by guns.

  • An0nB0t||

    Much of Europe also has a significantly higher suicide rate than the US.

    Obviously, gun control causes suicide.

  • Enough About Palin||

    We need to ban planes going to San Francisco. Those people could either kill themselves by jumping off of the GGB or kill others by pushing them off.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Thousands of people are killed in bathtub or shower accidents annually. I propose that we ban those menaces too.

  • Jeff||

    Definitely. Why have a fatal accident in a bathtub when there are equally easy methods that don't require getting your skin all pruny?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Mexican showers must become the law of the land.

  • SugarFree||

    I prefer a simple whore's bath.

  • Enough About Palin||

    imma head to the Urban Dictionary.

  • T o n y||

    Bullshit deflection and you know it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    A deflection of bullshit? Absolutely.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I mean, you're including accidents and suicides in your total. So it's fitting to include other accidents.

  • T o n y||

    Deadly accidents and suicides which would be much less likely to happen without a gun present. I don't get why accidents and suicides shouldn't be part of the equation.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Suicides shouldn't be part of the equation because (a) they shouldn't be illegal in the first place, as one's life is one's own, and (b) it's extremely unlikely that lack of a firearm will prevent someone from killing themselves.

    As far as accidents go, you then have to address all the other objects in modern life that kill people via accidents.

  • KPres||

    We should just ban guns for Democrats. That would cut gun deaths by 50%.

  • KPres||

    "I don't get why accidents and suicides shouldn't be part of the equation."

    Suicides shouldn't. You have the right to off yourself if that's what you want.

    MY BODY MY CHOICE!!!!!! (except when not!)

  • sarcasmic||

    It's called "reductio ad absurdum," moron.

  • sarcasmic||

    Think of all the people who die from obesity related illnesses. Obviously we should ban spoons.

  • WTF||

    And cars! 40,000deaths a year due to cars! BAN THEM!!!!!

  • Enough About Palin||

    And far more than 20 child victims.

  • Restoras||

    Don't forget the biggest killer of children every year - swimming pools! Think of all the jerbz created by the need to fill all those killing machines!

  • Jeff||

    Now that you mention it, shithead, it is a bit scary that these people are so intent on abridging freedoms that they don't even give one shit whether or not the measures will have any impact whatsoever on gun violence. Whenever they see an opening they just fall all over themselves to take shit away because it's what they do and it's who they are.

  • T o n y||

    So what do you propose to do about gun violence?

  • Jeff||

    I propose to not disarm the law-abiding citizens who are not the fucking problem.

  • ||

    Every citizen is a potential criminal and subversive element that is danger to the state. //Comrade Tony

  • T o n y||

    We've got more guns than people and horrifying gun violence statistics. What do you propose that might actually work?

    Or do you just want to stop the conversation, let the people continue to die at horrifying rates, and make sure gun sales are maximized, because the NRA and its extremist positions are what do your thinking for you?

  • ||

    Or do you just want to stop the conversation, let the people continue to die at horrifying rates, and make sure gun sales are maximized, because the NRA and its extremist positions are what do your thinking for you?

    Impressive, a false dichotomy and a strawman argument all wrapped in one. The Stupid is strong with this one.

    And shithead, we've had the "conversation" every time there has been a shooting and your side simply loses because Americans rightfully don't trust the government to not violate inalienable rights like the right to keep and to bear arms.

  • T o n y||

    Show me any poll that does not show a majority of NRA members, let alone Americans, who are in favor of the types of reasonable regulations I'm talking about.

    The constitution is a piece of paper, and I don't intend to let it stop me from having a conversation.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Show me any poll that does not show a majority of NRA members, let alone Americans, who are in favor of the types of reasonable regulations I'm talking about.

    Fuck your "reasonable regulations," you obsequious bootlicker.

    The constitution is a piece of paper, and I don't intend to let it stop me from having a conversation.

    Thanks for the insight, Professor Seidman.

  • Jeff||

    We don't have more guns than people, you silly little fuck. Given how many nations there are who have strict gun control and still manage to be far more violent than us, what do you propose that might actually work?

    Nibbling around the edges to take away a few guns deemed arbitrarily "scary" isn't going to do shit, and you fucking well know it.

  • Redmanfms||

    Nibbling around the edges to take away a few guns deemed arbitrarily "scary" isn't going to do shit, and you fucking well know it.

    Spaces outright admits as much below.

    But the efficacy of proposed legislation is irrelevant to vacuous fascist cunts like Spaces, so long as SOMETHING IS DONE1111!!!!111

  • Anonymous Coward||

    We've got more guns than people and horrifying gun violence statistics. What do you propose that might actually work?

    And yet, the number of people who die in nice, safe, government-approved vehicles is entirely within acceptable, non-horrifying limits.

    Or do you just want to stop the conversation, let the people continue to die at horrifying rates, and make sure gun sales are maximized, because the NRAEmmanuel Goldstein and its extremist positions are what do your thinking for you?

    Tony w/spaces, you've never started a "conversation." All you've done is waved the bloody shirt and demanded that "something" must be done.

    And you're the worst sockpuppet ever.

  • Brutus||

    A lot of countries have a lots fewer guns and lots more dead people. Should we be like them?

  • GILMORE||

    T o n y| 1.9.13 @ 3:16PM |#

    So what do you propose to do about gun violence?

    WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SLIP IN THE BATHTUB!! WHY ARE YOU NOT TAKING AWAY EVERYONES FREEDOMS IN ORDER TO DO SOMETHING!!! FAILING TO DO SOMETHING IS TANTAMOUNT TO ENTERING PEOPLES HOMES AND THROWING GRANNY ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR YOURSELF! WE MUST MUST FORBID PEOPLE FROM BATHS! SPONGE WASHING ONLY BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT PEOPLE MORE THAN YOU

  • ||

    I wish we had some sort of upvoting mechanism, because this post deserves it.

  • IamNotEvil||

    End the drug war.

  • KPres||

    "So what do you propose to do about gun violence?"

    Ban guns for Democrats NOW!!

  • ||

    There are plenty of ways to address the problem of gun violence that don't involve shitting on people's rights and you know it you mendacious twit.

    This isn't about protecting anyone, it's about increasing the power of the government and sticking it to the other Team, and if that involves using the corpses of children as stepping stones, than so much the better.

  • Almanian.||

    I'll bite: "Yes, that is my position."

    Next sockpuppet!

  • sloopyinca||

    Why isn't Tony calling for a ban on cars, as they are also inanimate objects but are involved in considerably more homicides than firearms are on an annual basis.

    Oh, I know why. Because cars aren't what keeps the boot of government from smashing in our face every fucking minute of every fucking day.

  • T o n y||

    Oh look the car argument. Never heard that one before.

    First I'm not advocating for a ban on all guns. All I've even remotely hinted at in this thread is minor changes to gun regulations.

    You know how we regulate car safety at every level from shape to drunk driving laws to seatbelts to speed limits to fucking blinky lights?

    Shove this lame analogy up your ass you paranoid fanatic.

  • Almanian.||

    Yeah - I think all that regulation is bullshit, too. Shove your paranoid fear of guns up your own ass, you pathetic leech.

  • T o n y||

    So you admit to being a radical dogmatist who thinks life would be swell with no traffic or car safety laws. Great.

  • barfman2013||

    *barf*

  • Enough About Palin||

    Happy new year, barfman. And to your family ass well.

  • sloopyinca||

    Strawman, as the vast majority of the safety advances were adopted by the industry prior to the government stepping in. If anything, the government has held back some safety features by adopting absurd CAFE standards that have caused manufacturers to build lighter cars that may have actually decreased safety enhancements just so they can meet mileage standards.

  • ||

    All I've even remotely hinted at in this thread is minor changes to gun regulations.

    Well that settles it then. We all know we can trust our benevolent political superiors like Senator Feinstein, Governor Cuomo, and of course the Dear Leader himself to never take a mile when given an inch.

    Nope, no government has ever abused its "moderate" and "common sense" regulatory power at the expense of freedom.

  • T o n y||

    Much better to put absolutist fanatics like you in charge, I suppose, so at least they're honest in their intentions.

  • ||

    That's some A+ projection right there Tony, I will give you that.

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh look the car argument. Never heard that one before.

    Then you should have been prepared to hear it. Based on the rest of your post, you weren't.

    First I'm not advocating for a ban on all guns. All I've even remotely hinted at in this thread is minor changes to gun regulations.

    Oh, so you're one of the "Top Men" that should be the arbiters of how, where and who should have a right to defend themselves? Well, we're honored, I guess.

    You know how we regulate car safety at every level from shape to drunk driving laws to seatbelts to speed limits to fucking blinky lights?

    Right, and with all of those regulations you still miss the only part of the equation that makes the vehicle deadly: the person behind the wheel. Because speeding is a crime, drunk riving is a crime, distracted driving is a crime and vehicular manslaughter is a crime just like brandishing a weapon, firing randomly and shooting another person are crimes. IOW, the laws are already on the books for both. Besides, the overwhelming majority of those "regulations" and standardizations were adopted by the auto industries well before government stepped in. It was called adapting to the market you fucking moron.

    Shove this lame analogy up your ass you paranoid fanatic.

    Nice retort. Concise, well-reasoned and very persuasive. I'm sure you'll sway a lot of people to your side with debating skills like that.

  • T o n y||

    Oh, so you're one of the "Top Men" that should be the arbiters of how, where and who should have a right to defend themselves?

    No, but we do have elected officials to fill that role. There's a large array of weapon types you're not allowed to have and that no sane person thinks you should be allowed to have. You're trying to pretend that where we happen to draw the line right at this moment is the correct, constitutional, and prudent place. But you really just want to stop the conversation because you've been made a fanatic.

    Your claim about how cars would be just as safe without government regulations is utter bullshit, but even if I go with it there's a major difference. There isn't an allegedly massively powerful lobbying outfit out there whose sole mission is to make cars as deadly a threat as possible to society. Nobody wants people dying by cars. The types of firearms people are talking about regulating are machines designed for one purpose only: to shred human tissue.

  • sloopyinca||

    No, but we do have elected officials to fill that role.

    Yes, and they've done such a wonderful job with:
    The Budget
    Immigration
    Foreign Policy
    Free speech rights
    4th Amendment rights
    5th Amendment rights
    Expanding liberty to all residents of the USA
    Self-policing corruption
    Gay rights
    Civil rights
    Property rights protections
    Respecting human rights overseas
    Respecting national sovereignty

    Yeah, I'm really jazzed up about those fucks becoming more powerful.

  • sloopyinca||

    There's a large array of weapon types you're not allowed to have and that no sane person thinks you should be allowed to have.

    Many on that list are bullshit.

    You're trying to pretend that where we happen to draw the line right at this moment is the correct, constitutional, and prudent place.

    No I think the line should be moved the other way quite a bit, actually.

    But you really just want to stop the conversation because you've been made a fanatic.

    I don't want to stop the conversation until I'm able to purchase any weapon our military can.

  • T o n y||

    Any weapon our military can? Really? You want that freedom for yourself. Do you want that freedom for your psychopathic neighbor?

  • Redmanfms||

    Do you want that freedom for your psychopathic neighbor?

    We want that freedom precisely because we have psychopathic neighbors like you who will find a way, whether it be buy hook or crook, to steal our shit and murder us because we aren't "in" on your fucking delusions.

  • sloopyinca||

    Your claim about how cars would be just as safe without government regulations is utter bullshit,

    Then you'd have no problem offering citations to prove it.

    There isn't an allegedly massively powerful lobbying outfit out there whose sole mission is to make cars as deadly a threat as possible to society.

    What lobbying group's sole mission is to make guns as deadly a threat as possible to society? I'd really like to know. Please show your work. I'm sure they'd have plenty of quotes out there since they're so "massive" and "powerful".

    The types of firearms people are talking about regulating are machines designed for one purpose only: to shred human tissue.

    Isn't the purpose determined by the person that buys it? Because the only purpose of the weapon from a manufacturing standpoint is to fire a projectile out of one end. Your argument is like saying all sportscars are designed for people to speed on the highway while driving drunk so as to cause an accident that kills a busload of schoolkids just because 1 in every 100,000 sportscar owners did.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    There's a large array of weapon types you're not allowed to have and that no sane person thinks you should be allowed to have.


    You're begging the question.

    Your claim about how cars would be just as safe without government regulations is utter bullshit,


    Because everybody knows that people would only buy unsafe cars, so government saves us from ourselves. Isn't that so?

    There isn't an allegedly massively powerful lobbying outfit out there whose sole mission is to make cars as deadly a threat as possible to society.


    There isn't one as well when it comes to guns, Tony. You don't lobby for something you already have, which is the right to bear arms. You CAN however lobby to have guns removed from the hands of law-abiding citizens. For some reason, those lobby groups are called "advocates" whereas the civil rights advocates who advocate for the right to keep and bear arms are called lobbyists, by partisan journalists, opinion makers, politicians and you.

    he types of firearms people are talking about regulating are machines designed for one purpose only: to shred human tissue.


    Actually, they're designed to throw a projectile really fast. If you want to shred human tissue, there's nothing better than a machete.

  • Zeb||

    The idea that the NRA is in any way extreme is pretty laughable. I assume that's the lobbying outfit that Tony is talking about.

  • KPres||

    There isn't an allegedly massively powerful lobbying outfit out there whose sole mission is to make cars as deadly a threat as possible to society.

    LOL!

  • GILMORE||

    T o n y| 1.9.13 @ 3:04PM |#

    Your guys' position is we can do absolutely nothing whatsoever about gun regulations...

    Apparently this is how an idiot perceives anyone who points out that "DO *SOMETHING*...SOMETHING!!!!" does not equate to any rational policy simply because "Something" was done!

  • Almanian.||

    WE need to DO SOMETHING about the people who want to DO SOMETHING!

    Don't just stand there, DO SOMEHING!!!1one!!!

  • GILMORE||

    Almanian.| 1.9.13 @ 3:26PM |#

    WE need to DO SOMETHING about the people who want to DO SOMETHING!

    i believe the expression "DO SOMETHING" roughly translates into "take peoples rights away"

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Your guys' position is we can do absolutely nothing whatsoever about gun regulations,


    That's not true, don't be a liar.

    Many times everybody here have said that such regulations should be repealed or rejected. So don't lie.

    and that tens of thousands of gun deaths in the US is just the price of freedom,


    The same way as thousands of car deaths does not provide a reason to ban cars, or thousands of bathtub drowning deaths present evidence that bathtubs should be illegal.

    [...] yet it's people advocating for modest changes to gun policy in response to such horrifying data who are the scary ones?


    Yes, because people that have such knee-jerk reaction to an extremely rare event cannot be rational human beings. Irrational people ARE scary.

  • Brandybuck||

    What the fuck is it with every assault rifle bill putting in stuff about bayonet mounts? Do they really think they're preventing mass bayoneting of school children with this shit? And don't get me started on the stuff about flash suppressors!

  • sarcasmic||

    Bayonet mounts are menacing. So are flash suppressors. Pistol grips as well.

    If you ban menacing guns then people will not commit menacing acts with them.

  • John||

    There really isn't any subject these people can't display profound ignorance about.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Barrels and triggers are menacing too, so why don't we ban those?

  • Almanian.||

    "But I want to face the peril menace."

    "No! It's too....perilous menacing."

    Monty Python works for everything.

  • T o n y||

    That loophole is widely criticized by the left as what made the assault weapon man ineffective.

  • iggy||

    And they're wrong. What made the assault rifle ban so ineffective was the natural black market that springs up around every ban, just like the ones that sprung up around prohibition and the drug war.

  • T o n y||

    If regulations are reasonable, for certain practical, sane purposes, such as the ones supported my majorities of gun owners and NRA members, then there would be no need for a black market, except for people wanting to use guns for bad purposes. But the reality of that situation exists anyway. We can figure out a law enforcement strategy for that. In the meantime we've lessened the severity of the overall problem of gun death in this country.

  • Jordan||

    then there would be no need for a black market, except for people wanting to use guns for bad purposes.

    Wrong, as usual. No surprise that you parrot the drug warriors.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Thus demonstrating that the left, collectively, has no fucking idea what it's talking about when it comes to guns.

    I mean, honestly. You assholes banned magazine-fed semi-autos that have two or more Evil Features. Manufacturers responded by making magazine-fed semi-autos with zero or one Evil Features. You then proceeded to shriek like women about how they were CIRCUMVENTING THE LAW!!!1!

  • R C Dean||

    I am very pleased to note that the only thing standing between me and a full-on silencer for my M1A is good financial sense (a weak reed, indeed). The M1A comes with a flash suppressor on its . . . threaded barrel! Woot!

  • db||

    A can plus the transfer tax runs less than a good high quality pistol. Treat yourself. Might as well get familiar with the NFA registration process now...

  • ||

    The ban is not pointless. The point of it is to get people used to bans. This is the same as putting a yoke on an oxen but not having him plow just to let him get used to the feel of it.

    I keep witnessing 2nd amendment types debating with gun grabbers and trying to make sense. What they dont understand is that they are having a different conversation than the gun grabbers are. Their proposals arent designed to fix any problems, they are designed to get us used to bans because more are coming.

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^ All gun control is premised on the idea that all guns can be eliminated. Since that can never happen, all controls short of world wide destruction of all firearms and the knowledge of how to make them are destined to fail. The idea is to enact "sensible controls" knowing they will fail giving you justification for more "sensible controls". Rinse repeat.

    The other goal of these laws is to make as many gun owners as possible criminals. Pass laws that you know will be ignored and are generally unenforceable. That then makes more gun owners criminals thus making it easier to marginalize gun owners from society.

    You keep reading about leftists fantasizing about killing their political enemies. They are not kidding around. That is where they want to go. They are fucking mad.

  • T o n y||

    All gun control is premised on the idea that all guns can be eliminated.

    No it isn't, you "lying little fascist."

    This post is clearly nutso conspiracy theory talk, and it's rather disturbing that you see it as reasonable. This strawman paranoia is meant to silence all debate on the gun issue, just as the NRA (lobbyist for gun manufacturers) wants. What a stupid little puppet you are.

  • John||

    Yes it is Tony. If someone is willing to commit a crime with a gun, they are certainly willing to break a gun law to get one. The only way a gun law can ever work is if you can somehow stop the supply of guns. And that isn't going to happen absent eliminating all guns.

    In this case, you are not so much lying as just profoundly stupid and incapable of understanding your own position.

  • T o n y||

    All you're really saying is "we should not discuss any measures whatsoever to address gun violence, if it involves guns."

    I'm not saying I know what will reduce this country's horrific murder rates. I'm saying we regulate your fucking tuna sandwich so it's not a fascist conspiracy to discuss regulating killing machines.

  • John||

    I'm not saying I know what will reduce this country's horrific murder rates.

    Then what possible reason would you have to advocate for it?

  • John||

    And that is exactly what these laws will do. The Feinstein proposal would make it a federal felony to give anyone, including your children a weapon. So giving your kids your grandfather's shotgun would be a felony.

    Millions of people do that every year. That law is totally unenforceable and will be ignored. But what it will do is make pretty much every gun owner I know a criminal. Now either Feinstein is borderline retarded and has no idea how the world works or she wants to make every gun owner a criminal. Which is it?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Which part of the proposal are you talking about? The ban on transfer only applies to so-called AWs.

    The other provision applying to all guns just says you have to transfer through an FFL.

  • John||

    You have to transfer through a FFL Tulpa. Do you know how many weapons fit under the definition of AW under the bill. Tons. It would make criminals out of millions of gun owners.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Most guns would not be AWBs under the bill. I'm on your side in general but let's not obfuscate like the Tonys of the world.

  • John||

    But millions would be Tulpa.

  • John||

    And Tulpa, it would require the guns be registered and turned over to the government on the owner's death. No way would people do that. It would do nothing but make millions of people criminals.

    If you will defend that, you need to leave the room.

  • T o n y||

    Considering most gun owners favor more regulation, I'd have to seriously consider the benefit of locking up the rest of you paranoid nutcases.

  • John||

    Considering most gun owners favor more regulation, I'd have to seriously consider the benefit of locking up the rest of you paranoid nutcases.

    The voices in your head don't count. There is not a single poll that has ever shown that. Stop lying you fascist little fuck.

  • barfman2013||

    Considering most gun owners favor more regulation

    *barf*

  • sarcasmic||

    killing machines

    A term used by those who would ban all guns in the hands of citizens subjects.

  • GILMORE||

    we should not discuss any measures whatsoever to address gun violence

    SOCKPUPPET ADDRESSES GUN VIOLENCE =


    "To: Gun Violence
    Somewhere in America

    Dear Gun Violence,

    Why are you so bad! You make me hate the constitution! Every time someone shoots people, I'm going to demand my congressman pass laws which infringe on the rights of every single American, just to spite you! Yes, I know a miniscule fraction of violence in America involves you! BUT I WILL PUNISH EVERYONE BECAUSE IT MAKES ME FEEL GOOD TO TAKE PEOPLES THINGS AWAY!

    p.s. also, racism is bad

    Yours,

    Tony The Shithead

  • Michael S. Langston||

    horrific murder rates

    What is the optimal murder rate?

    Without an answer to this question - preferring solutions is nothing more than emotional whining about "horrific" things.

    Then - please show how any legislation currently proposed would lessen the current "horrific" rate to the new, Tony & statist-approved "acceptable" murder rate?

    Without both - your attempt at a conversation, is no more real than 3 year old's argument that their sibling got more ice cream than they did.

  • T o n y||

    Horrific is a relative term. Gun death rates in this country are horrific, say, relative to those of a country in which there isn't a civil war going on.

    I am not an expert on this issue. I don't know if an alarming amount of gun proliferation is the cause of our high gun death rates, or if we have a mysteriously high incident rate of homicidal mania. All I'm saying is it's something worth studying.

    You guys are saying, no it's not, because the constitooshun.

  • GILMORE||

    you havent really demonstrated yourself as a 'student' of shit

    you have here alone breezed by every fact and consistently played rhetorical games with every point, to the extent to where you only play the 'politicians response', where you pretend something has been said or asked which has not. you are the icon of the dishonest and disingenuous debater

  • Restoras||

    Fuck off and die in a fire, sockpuppet.

  • Jeff||

    "This post is clearly nutso conspiracy theory talk," he said before promptly launching into his own nutso conspiracy theory talk.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    This post is clearly nutso conspiracy theory talk


    "Getting rid of the Jews? That's crazy talk!"

    The world has listened to the same story coming from statist fucktards like you, Tony - "Oh, it can't possibly happen here!"

  • T o n y||

    Nope nothing paranoid or exaggerated here.

  • Brutus||

    Kulaks? Bougeousie? Counter-revolutionaries? Hoarders? Wreckers? Saboteurs?

    After all your Grand Plans collapse in failure, Tony, the hunt is on for the guilty. You and your psychotic leftist pals will find plenty. I pray they will be armed when you come for them.

  • T o n y||

    Totally sane policy discussion going on here.

  • DarrenM||

    Their proposals arent designed to fix any problems, they are designed to get us used to bans because more are coming.

    I suspect the ultimate goal is to repeal the 2nd amendment. This is just to get people used to the idea.

  • Brutus||

    Noooo...they'll leave it there to make you think it's still in force. Like the rest of the Constitution, they'll just gut its meaning and replace it with their own.

  • GILMORE||

    ..."many high-powered rifles now in production are exempt from the ban because, advocacy groups say, manufacturers have altered their products to circumvent the law."

    The DERP.... it HURTS

    "Gee, these idiot politicians say that a "Flash Hider" is like, a dangerous accessory which makes weapons uniquely 'Assaulty!' Well, Jim, I guess we're gonna hafta saw the darn thing off..."

    "STOP YOU! *YOU'RE CIRCUMVENTING THE LAW!!!*"

    in the gun-control fantasy universe, "Compliance"= 'circumventing the law'

    The implicit message seems to be "if those darn sneaky gun-manufacturers hadn't been all compliant and stuff and just made guns that met the requirements for *sporting* rifles, all the assulty ones would be gone by now!!"

    Why oh why did our magical anti-gun legislation fail?? NOT BECAUSE THE LAW IS STUPID AND MEANINGLESS! Its because of a lack of *compliance*...by which they meant, "dear gun company= please die"

  • John||

    There is no point in debating these people anymore. See tony above. They are completely dishonest and where they are not dishonest it is only because they are completely ignorant. You can't debate people who are not thinking rationally.

  • T o n y||

    We're dishonest because we don't admit to being the strawman your paranoid bullshit rhetoric makes us out to be.

  • Restoras||

    Fuck off and die in a fire, sockpuppet.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're dishonest because, well, you have proven yourself over and over and over to be dishonest.

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's not an albatross.

  • ||

    You are dishonest because you know damn well if you were honest about what you want you would get your ass handed to you yet again. You have no defensible position so you have to lie.

    It is as simple as that.

  • OldMexican||

    Re Tony,

    We're dishonest because we don't admit to being the strawman your paranoid bullshit rhetoric makes us out to be.


    That's not it. You're dishonest because you argue from emotion only because guns go bang.

    You call any organization that advocates for a constitutionally-protected civil liberty a "lobby group", which would make the ACLU a "lobby group" as well.

    You repeat the talking points coming from politicians that show their total lack of familiarity with the subject they're talking about.

    You completely ignore the reality that this country is actually safer thanks to guns than countries that ban guns. The UK is considered by the EU the most dangerous place to visit among the EU countries.

    You are oblivious to the fact that most gun violence in this country is related to gang activity, motivated by the insidious war on drugs. You seem not to realize that the places where guns are totally forbidden are veritable hellholes of criminality - Chicago, D.C. for instance.

    And you go on MORALIZING on a feature of an inanimate object, e.g. the fact that a gun can shoot bullets whereas other things do not. This despite the fact that a fist can kill just as certainly as the bullet fired from a gun. You pass moral judgment on the object, and not on the action. You're no better than the Puritans of old.

  • T o n y||

    OM the NRA exists to prevent government from doing anything that might reduce the sales of guns and gun accessories. The ACLU isn't trying to sell anything.

  • iggy||

    Hey, Tony. Why has the War on Drugs done nothing to decrease drug use in this country while simultaneously creating a dangerous black market?

    After all, you apparently believe that a ban should make something go away and should also make us safer. So why hasn't any ban ever done that?

  • T o n y||

    Show me where I advocated a ban of any kind.

    In theory you're right--with a product that is ubiquitous and desirable despite legal restrictions, a black market will develop along with its associated nastiness.

    That's why you gotta knock the doors down and confiscate 'em all.

  • Jordan||

    Show me where I advocated a ban of any kind.

    You are so retarded. It's really quite breathtaking:

    That's why you gotta knock the doors down and confiscate 'em all.
  • T o n y||

    Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

  • LockesChild||

    Trial lawyers sell lots of services based on ACLU efforts. Trial lawyers donate to ACLU.

    according to your brain-dead syllogism then the ACLU exists to sell trial lawyer services.

    moron

  • Almanian.||

    I addition to finally joining the NRA (which I had resisted to now, cause I don't have much use for them - till now), I just picked up 4 HKS speedloaders for our S&W 686.

    Holy SHIT what a difference! You can get pretty fast with those with just a little practice.

    You still can't have my Glock, but if you do get it? I've increased my reload speed with the S&W measurably.

    Fuck you, gun grabbers.

  • Restoras||

    Instapundit linked to a video the other day of speedloading a revolver that looked like it didn't take much more time than a (semi-)automatic. It didin't look like it would take much practice to get the hang of it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes, but you have to load more often.

    I prefer speedstrips personally because they're less tempermental.

  • John||

    In many ways a revolver is a more reliable weapon than an automatic. It can't jam. And if you are really intent on doing a ton of harm, just carry several revolvers and drop each one when you have run out of shells.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I had a Heritage Arms revolver whose cylinder jammed after the third reload.

  • John||

    You had a piece of shit.

  • T||

    Well, yes, but it proves revolvers can jam. Revolvers are actually fairly tricksy mechanical devices. They're way more elegant than semi-autos in that baroque steampunk way old tech tends to be.

    Having said that, I still prefer semis. A semi can jam, but revolver malfs tend more towards the not fixable in the field kind.

  • GILMORE||

    PISH POSH, REAL MEN CARRY A BLUNDERBUSS

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Especially the new Ruger/S&Ws; with the flerking internal locks.

    why, why, why?

  • ||

    Sounds like we need a ban on "death loaders" since all they do is provide more ammo for "killing machines."

  • R C Dean||

    the Governor proposed tightening our assault weapons ban and eliminating large capacity magazines regardless of date of manufacture.

    So, confiscation it is? Not even pretending any more, are we?

    If nothing else, I'll be curious to see whether seizing previously legal items is a taking, and requires compensation.

  • WTF||

    I'll be curious to see whether seizing previously legal items is a taking, and requires compensation.

    Of course it is, and of course it does, but the Nazgul will never enforce such.

  • Drake||

    I'll be curious to see what bullet sponge volunteers to walk point on the confiscation trail.

  • John||

    http://www.infowars.com/veiled.....lex-jones/

    Funny how gun controlers love to fantasize about murdering their opponents.

  • ||

    Nothing will convince me to disarm like death threats.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I don’t care what the justification is that you’re allowed in this country to own a semi-automatic weapon – much less a handgun.

    LALALALALALALALA! Can't hear you!!! LALALALALALALALALALA!!!!!! Very fucking mature.

    But what do you need a semi-automatic weapon for?

    Because sometimes clearing a spent cartridge manually wastes valuable time that could be used shooting tyrants.

    The only reason I think you’d need it is, Piers, challenge Alex Jones to a boxing match, show up with a semi-automatic that you got legally and pop him.

    Gun violence is terrible and must be stopped! Unless we don't like you! I often wonder what it's like to go through life unprincipled and stupid, then I see Buzz Bissinger and am glad to be neither.

  • GILMORE||

    ""But what do you need a semi-automatic weapon for?""

    I've seen this word, "Need" bandied around frequently by the statist control-freaks

    They seem to be trying to set up the debate to get someone to claim,

    "I *needs* me a machine-gunz and teh grenade launchers so's I can wage revolooshun against teh Govmint' AINT AI CRAZY!! WHOO HEEE!!!"

    ...so they can go, 'tsk tsk. See how crazy these people are? its appalling how uncivilized they are...'

    How about, "I have *the right to defend myself*, and when it comes to defending one's self, you better be better armed than the son of a bitch who represents a threat to you" Ergo = I NEEDS ME WHATEVER THE FUCK I WANT

  • An0nB0t||

    "I've seen this word, "Need" bandied around frequently by the statist control-freaks"

    Authoritarians certainly don't have any legitimate need for their computers, cars, televisions, or two-storey houses paid for with legal plunder.

    On the other hand, it's becoming increasingly likely that civilians will eventually need weaponry that would permit them to offer legitimate resistance were the state to go Lincoln/Wilson on them again.

  • LockesChild||

    Yeah, but they are the elite and get to fantasize about murdering their opponents. Us, not so much.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Joe Biden is now claiming the executive branch has authority to enact gun control measures through executive order.

    This administration is literally the scum of the earth.

  • Brutus||

    L'etat, c'est moi!

  • db||

    Does anyone happen to have the titles of any good account of personal tales from people who fled the Nazi regime early? I'm curious as to what the warning signs were for people who were perceptive and smart enough to get out while the getting was good.

  • John||

    There are some good accounts of foreigners living in Germany.

    http://www.amazon.com/Hitlerla.....143919100X

    I haven't read that one. But I have read this one.

    http://www.amazon.com/Garden-B.....030740885X

    And it is a great book.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Here's one from Werner Weinberg about why he did not. He attempts to answer your question towards the middle of the piece, not without a lot of bitterness on his part. Admittedly, it's a hell of a lot easier with hindsight to see that Hitler was a bad guy and things would end terribly for the Jews.

  • John||

    Is it? He always said that was what he was going to do. The only reason people didn't believe him was that the idea was so horrible that they didn't think he could really mean it. I am not sure that is a good excuse for not taking someone at their word.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Aren't we kind of doing the same thing (but with much smaller stakes) when we denigrate anything that Biden's put in charge of because the man's such a buffoon? Seems to me the Jews felt the same way about Hitler: that he was such a lunatic that an adult would eventually come and lock him up or make him and his group stop. Only no one came.

    Criminy, look at all of the people who are pissed off about their tax hikes and who voted for Obama this go-round, when he told them exactly what he was planning on doing? It may not be a good excuse, but IMHO, it's certainly understandable.

  • db||

    Thanks for those suggestions. A few years ago I read They Thought They Were Free, an account of how regular Germans became inured to violent rhetoric vilifying minority populations, eventually even becoming complicit in the Holocaust. The more hatred I see against libertarians, and the apparent overwhelming tendency of the media to label people who think differently as "extremist," the more I wonder whether we are on a recoverable path. I'm interested in storoes of people who have fled totalitarian states in the incipient stages of their formation, and what were their decision points and red flags.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'll see if I can find some from the early days of Bolshevik Russia, the days Lenin still thought that exile from the Soviet Union was a punishment for people.

    I'm disagreeing with Tulpa on this one, FWIW. If they move towards outright confiscation of handguns, I think it'll set off either widespread armed resistance and/or actual secession and not just bellyaching. I'm pretty sure a nationwide UBR ban wouldn't do it, but I could be wrong. This isn't Australia; I don't think a sizable minority would go quietly. And I don't think they'd wait for the Gov't to find them first.

    I would be thrilled if none of this ever came to pass, of course. I do agree with Tulpa that the most likely outcome of armed resistance would be a police state, with much greater levels of repression, and tragedy all around: not anything that would resemble Libertopia.

    Scary times. Couple the columns about the NSA being able to set up a turnkey totalitarian state with increased capital controls for citizens, and a law enforcement apparatus more and more militarized, and willing to use its force, and I don't like the trends.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    As the Great Philosopher said, "it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future".

    I hope we never find out who's right on either question.

  • An0nB0t||

    I can't imagine any confiscation scenario in which several (if not most) governors don't nullify. That would initiate another "send in the Guard" moment, except in this case it would be all over the nation.

    At that point in time, I'm northward bound. Spending the rest of my life in BC and fishing in the Pacific beats the hell out of dealing with a whole generation of emperors who are even worse than the scum we have now.

  • Brutus||

    I'm beginning to wonder that myself.

  • ||

    Sadly, you probably won't see this since I'm a couple days late in posting, but, I think Defying Hitler by Sebastian Haffner is exactly what you are asking for. Also, it was excellent. In fact, the only thing I really didn't like about the book was the fact that he never finished it.

    Haffner left Germany for England prior to WWII. He then started writing the book about why he left and how evil Hitler was. When WWII started, he thought the whole thing was moot so he stopped writing the book. His incomplete manuscript was found and published a little over ten years ago.

    The book is simply fascinating.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312421133/reasonmagazineA/

  • ||

    Part II, due to character limits...

    Another title that I thought was excellent, but not quite directly what you were asking for was The Nazi Officer's Wife by Edith H. Beer.

    Beer was a jewish girl living in Austria when the Nazis took over. One day a group of Nazi thugs grabbed her and her mother to send them off as slave labor on a farm. This was of course before the Nazis were actively trying to exterminate the jews. Beer, who was probably twenty or so at the time, realized that while they weren't actually trying to kill them, that the work would be rough and that the Nazis wouldn't mind if they died doing it. So, she convinced them that her mother was just a friend, not a jew, and that she was not capable of doing the work. Ironically, that probably signed her death warrant because Beer was eventually released from the camp and upon her return she found that her mother had been sent to a death camp.

    Alone, and basically a fugitive, Beer moved to Germany where she posed as a christian and ended up marrying a Nazi officer. When he proposed, she admitted to him that she was a jew but he said he didn't care.

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068817776X/reasonmagazineA/

  • wingnutx||

    Imports can be banned via executive order.

    That would simply make arms and ammunition more expensive.

    Tapco would sell a hell of a lot more AK magazines.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    From the Tulpa Is An Idiot files, I just took my 870 out of storage to see how it was doing and switch the barrel to a 20 incher, and discovered I'd left 4 snapcaps in the tube mag. About 5 months ago.

    Better order a new magazine spring....

  • T||

    I'm reasonably certain your spring will be fine. But then, my 870 stays loaded and I haven't had any feeding problems with it in... let's just say a long time.

  • wingnutx||

    A quality spring will not be damaged by keeping it under a normal load. Springs wear out by repeated compression and release.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Really?

    My whole philosophy with my pistol magazines may be mistaken then.

    ::shakes fist in direction of NRA basic firearms instructors::

  • Restoras||

    The stiff sock T o n y fulfilled its purpose and got a 400+ comment thread. Nice work.

  • OldMexican||

    He really does try his best, you know. He comes with the most quaint of socialist claptrap that was heard even during Bastiat's lifetime:

    "People are too stoopid to govern themselves. That's why they vote for people to govern them."
    "Regulations are needed because people need regulation."

    And so on and so on.

    The canards he comes up with are just as amusing: "Guns are bad because people kill other people with guns."

    But cars also kill people

    "Yes, but guns are made to kill people."

    But guns don't fire themselves. Besides, people have been killing each other with all sorts of instruments. Just because you get rid of guns does not mean you get rid of evil. Guns do help make it easier for regular folks to defend themselves from bad people.

    "Well, guns make noise and smoke! That's bad."

    Uh, right. You just want people not to have guns since a disarmed people is easier to control.

    "Well, people are too stoopid to givern themselves...." Blah Blah Blah...

  • T o n y||

    Most of you clearly are too stupid to govern yourselves. Some of you are downright dangerously stupid: "I think I should have a right to own any weapon the military can purchase."

    Do you guys ever take a moment to let the light of practical reality slip through a crack in your shell of absolutist dogmatism?

  • iggy||

    God, you're a fucking idiot. You don't bother explaining how a ban would save anyone, don't bother explaining why this wouldn't create a dangerous black market...you just assume regulations will work, while providing no evidence. But we're the idiots.

    I don't know how you dress yourself in the morning.

  • T o n y||

    I've said explicitly that I don't know what will work. It's just that all the excuses for doing absolutely nothing are painfully lame.

  • iggy||

    There are many times when doing nothing is the best solution. If we'd done nothing about drugs instead of implementing the drug war, we'd be much better off. If we'd done nothing instead of prohibition, we would have been better off.

    Doing nothing is frequently the best solution, if all other possible solutions would have terrible consequences.

  • T o n y||

    The drug analogy isn't clean enough to let it end the conversation. People like using drugs. People don't like getting shot, and if someone shoots someone else, even you guys think he should be arrested. (The efficacy of guns as tools of self-defense sorely lacks the empirical basis to justify ending the conversation.)

    The situation we have with guns is essentially a black market that is legal. All the problems of a black market already exist. That is what you get in a laissez-faire market: a legitimized black market.

    Drugs are banned beyond any reasonable scope. Ending the gun show loophole is not comparable to that level of restriction.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    There is no gun show loophole. Thanks for playing.

  • T o n y||

    Fine, there's a "guns are allowed to be bought and sold without restriction" loophole, in which gun shows play a part.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    I sometimes wonder what it must be like, to live in asshole-clenched, urine-stained terror that someone, somewhere, is buying or selling private property without government supervision.

    I mean, the horror. The fucking horror.

    People who aren't in the business of selling firearms, and therefore who don't hold FFLs, can sell guns outside the Brady background check regime. That's not a "loophole"; that's the way the law was designed.

  • Jordan||

    People like using drugs. People don't like getting shot

    Inapt analogy. People like hunting and target shooting.

    The situation we have with guns is essentially a black market that is legal. All the problems of a black market already exist. That is what you get in a laissez-faire market: a legitimized black market.

    Meaningless tripe. Sorry, words have meanings.

  • GILMORE||

    T o n y| 1.9.13 @ 7:37PM |#

    I've said explicitly that I don't know what will work. It's just that all the excuses for doing absolutely nothing are painfully lame...

    ensuring individual's natural right to defend themselves is "lame" to you?

    how humane of you

  • T o n y||

    The concept of natural rights is very, very lame, and rather bold a justification for forbidding discussion of regulation of deadly weapons.

  • GILMORE||

    Tony mischaracterizes entire debate ="I think I should have a right to own any weapon the military can purchase."

    That is not the current issue, jackass

    (patent reductio ad absurdum)

    The governor of NY is insisting that restricting ownership of semi-automatic rifles (not 'military' weapons) is somehow a step towards a more crime-free world...

    ...despite the fact that rifles of ANY kind were used in less than .01% of shootings in NY state

    There is no logic there, there is no connection, it is simply an opportunistic grab by venal politicians to strip people of their second amendment rights. full stop. and you think its a wonderful idea, without any rationale whatsoever other than you get a boner whenever politicians DO SOMETHING

  • T o n y||

    I agree that more media attention should be paid to "routine" gun violence and the weapons involved, thus motivating democratic action. See I don't want government to impose massively unpopular restrictions on people. I want people to become so aware of reality that they overwhelmingly decide they want to ban all the other guns too.

    I'm not confident that the gun fetishists who seem so numerous in this country will ever give an inch, but I can hope that they are the same old, dying demographic responsible for every other ludicrous policy belief stinking up our system. Then, as with the rest of the ongoing realignment toward secular liberal government and away from blindly dogmatic rightwing laissez-faire idiocy, it's just a matter of waiting.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • GILMORE||

    T o n y| 1.9.13 @ 7:43PM |#

    I agree that more media attention should be paid to "routine" gun violence and the weapons involved

    funny, no one said that either. but i presume you would celebrate the vast proliferation of media coverage of the far-more routine legitimate use of firearms to defend ones self and property.

    slave-fetishists like you however may not be so enthusiastic now that i think about it

  • GILMORE||

    ...I want people to become so aware of reality

    such as how the most violent gun-crime cities and states in America are those with the most restrictive gun laws...while areas with permissive policies and high rates of ownership have far far less? im sure that 'reality' isnt precisely what you mean

  • GILMORE||

    oh, and that all the 'mass shootings' since the beginning of 'gun control' have occurred in 'gun-free zones'...

    words like "control" apparently are used to characterize "taking citizens control of their lives away"... and words like "free" only relevant in describing "creation of free-fire zones" where criminals can murder without fear of reprisal

    'reality', indeed

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Loughner's shooting wasn't in a GFZ, and the Aurora theater's policy wasn't enforced by a separate law, just a trespassing matter.

  • GILMORE||

    ....and the others?

  • GILMORE||

    "We Must Pass the Toughest Assault Weapons Ban in the Country:
    New York's ban on assault weapons is so riddled with loopholes and so difficult to understand that it has become virtually unenforceable..."

    Shit, that's crazy!? HOW'D IT GET THAT WAY, OH WISE POLITICO??

    oh, right! you shitheads keep layering so much stupid on top of unnecessary that when its time to read the fucking law-lasagna it makes no fucking sense and no one is going to really do shit about it anyway until some random guy gets pulled over after target shooting, and spends 15yrs in jail because he's got more ammo than regulations permit! We are all safer now that the state *criminalizes posession of an inanimate object*

  • tom_in_decatur||

    "This bill is ostensibly a response to last month's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where the shooter used a Bushmaster rifle that was legal under Connecticut's "assault weapon" ban..."

    Where are you getting your information from? Comic books? 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

  • LockesChild||

    Mmmm, confiscation. A fascist's wet dream indeed. He probably fantasizes while masturbating seeing his brown-shirts going door to door to confiscate registered guns

  • DarrenM||

    He described the aim as "ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles,"

    OK. I'm confused. Is this an assault weapon ban or and assault rifle ban? Assault rifles are already illegal.

  • DarrenM||

    It would be nice if the Left were honest for once and simply propose to repeal the 2nd amendment.

  • An0nB0t||

    Deliberating is hard. Ordering is easy.

    Which is why progressive constitutional law professors are now suggesting that the nation repeal the Constitution. Presumably by executive order. That would solve all the problems faced by a federal government that faces roadblocks to its will at every turn.

    Spooner was all in favor of repealing the Constitution as well, but not because it would make it easier for the state to act.

  • Brutus||

    That'd be too honest for the Left.

  • Tejicano||

    I fully understand that there are loads of Americans who fear guns like this fool Tony does - my stepmother for one - so his blathering is not new to me.

    No facts will change their minds. No logic will deter their mission to ban guns in some or any form.

    They always exaggerate their argument : “30,000 deaths a year”, “No purpose other than to kill”, …and never follow the “conversation” onto rational ground : What other ban can you point to which had significant impact? How will this ban work better than any other? What is the purpose of banning a bayonet lug? How will a monster willing to kill children be deterred by another law?

    If we break down the points I mention, the annual deaths from “assault weapons” becomes fewer than a couple hundred since all rifle related deaths is measured in hundreds, not even thousands.

    A guillotine has no purpose other than to kill. An effective weapon is useful for self defense which sometimes does result in death.

    OTOH - I have never once heard the gun-grabbers make any statements about the questions I mentioned above. I believe this is because they don’t really want to have a conversation.

  • T o n y||

    Part of the problem is that the CDC is not allowed to conduct research on gun deaths because of pro-gun political pressure. (It merely collects data.) You say that doesn't speak for itself. So let government do the research to find out what could work. If common ground and compromise mean absolutely anything to you guys, surely you can tolerate that first step.

  • Brutus||

    How about the CDC do stuff with diseases? I know, it's crazy, but...

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    No. The CDC is not an honest broker: they have a documented history of funding "science" from anti-gun ideologues like Arthur Kellerman, and then passing it off as dispassionate research.

    You want research? Okay. Fund it in double-blind fashion, so that the funding agency doesn't know (and can't exert influence upon) the researchers, and the researchers don't know who they're working for. Hire ONLY crimonologists, rather than doctors or epidemiologists who try to re-imagine gun violence as a disease; it may be a public health issue, but it's not a pathogen, and it's entirely outside a medical professional's expertise.

  • Tejicano||

    (cont'd)

    A personal case in point. One evening a group of five men were trying to break into the apartment upstairs from me (outdoor stairwells) just as the residents (friends of mine) were coming home. As the argument quickly grew heated (both my friends were cornered and being egged to fight) I opened my safe and picked a firearm to quell the disturbance.

    I intentionally picked one which would be scary and deadly because 1) if the thugs turned out to be armed I didn’t want to be under-gunned, and 2) the “scarier” my weapon was, the less likely any of the thugs would want to test me.

    Yes, there is a reason to have “deadly, scary looking” firearms.

  • theBuckWheat||

    As long as we are infringing on rights that shall not be infringed, who needs 30 pages in Hustler magazine? Society would be much better off with 20, maybe 10, probably, "five or six", certainly 3, maybe one, yet really honestly ZERO pages!

  • Tejicano||

    Debating with a sock puppet reminds me of the time in my youth when my 6 year old sister just had to open up one of those little packages our older sister was throwing away on a monthly schedule. There are some things you just don’t need to be curious about.

    If I wanted to debate this issue with a DNC water carrier I would call my step-mother. She would be just as disingenuous and ignore any points I raise... ...which is the main reason I don’t do it... ...but I might have some chance of getting through on some level.

  • T o n y||

    I've made no claim but that a conversation should exist on altering policy related to the regulation of deadly weapons.

    That conversation could go to banning more guns, or it could go to allowing the possession of small nuclear devices. You decide. Every response--every single response here--is instead a pathetic excuse to avoid the conversation altogether.

  • An0nB0t||

    Oh, is that all you want? You can adapt this to all future debates.

    "Do/does (individual or group) have the moral right to force (violation of right to person or property) upon (individual or group) who have not aggressed against the former's person or property?"

    "No."

  • An0nB0t||

    Did I say debates? I meant conversations.

  • Tejicano||

    Whenever I hear that “need a conversation” line about guns from the left it sounds like how I hear some American women hit their SO’s with that “we need to talk” line. (Never been married to an American so I don’t know how real that is)

    It doesn’t really mean they want to talk. It means they have some demands that they expect you to accept or face some consequences.

    The similarities are that there is no expectation to balance the needs of each side. The only expectation is that we are supposed to accept the feelings of the other side and present how we are going to “fix things”.

    No wonder this conversation doesn’t happen.

  • GILMORE||

    apparently the 'conversation' is one-sided, and failure to adhere to terms flexibly changed by the speaker is bad form. we has a sad

  • waaminn||

    Now why didnt I ever think of that? Wow.

    www.BigAnon.tk

  • Mickey Rat||

    Caught the tail end of Cuomo's state of the state spoeech on the radio. At the point where he is reiterating his gincontrol policies he starts shouting at the top of his lungs and sounding completely unhinged. As if there'e no cognitive dissonance calling for "common sense" regulation while sounding like the keynote speaker at a Nuremburg Rally.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement