Brady Center: The Second Amendment Threatens All Gun Laws

A story in Capitol Weekly, which covers California politics, speculates about the fallout from a Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller overturning the District of Columbia's gun ban. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for next month, with a ruling expected by the end of June. Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, is excited:

Any definition of the Second Amendment as an individual right is going to open up all kinds of legal avenues for us to overturn gun laws. We will change our focus from lobbying to legal action because the Legislature will be neutered. Any time they sponsor legislation we think is unconstitutional, we will challenge it.

Paredes mentions California's bans on "assault weapons" and .50-caliber guns as possible targets. But Robert Levy, the Cato Institute legal scholar who bankrolled the case, injects a note of caution:

"It lays the framework for challenging gun laws nationwide," Levy said. "It's a necessary step," he added, but not sufficient on its own. Lower courts would still need to rule that the case applied to state laws, he said, though it is likely they would; in almost all cases, courts have found that the Bill of Rights applies to state laws. Even then, he added, courts may still find that some types of guns could still be regulated, such as so-called assault weapons.

Knowing that he is supposed to disagree with anything Levy says, Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center to End Gun Violence takes the opposite position:

Bob Levy has a very strong vested interest in making statements like that. He wants to make this case seem as unthreatening as possible. If you try to pin these guys down on which guns laws they think are consistent with the Second Amendment, they won't tell you.

So here we have a Second Amendment advocate conceding that some forms of gun control could be found constitutional even if the courts recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms, while the gun control advocate argues that every firearm regulation is threatened. I love it. Here's something else that surprised me:

Normally considered liberals, Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both sympathetic to "reasonable gun rights," [gun law expert Irwin] Nowick added. A narrowly crafted individual right could win 7-2, he said.

Which reinforces Levy's point that a victory in D.C. v. Heller would be just the beginning of figuring out which gun laws are consistent with the Second Amendment. As Dan Polsby put it in reason back in 1996, the courts will finally have to treat the Second Amendment as "normal constitutional law." Last year I welcomed the ruling the Supreme Court is now reviewing, the federal appeals court decision declaring the D.C. gun law unconstitutional.

Comments

sage | February 8, 2008, 12:35pm | #

You know, I'm really hopeful for the "individual" view from the court, but this case still really scares me.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 12:36pm | #

I would be tickled pink if the outcome of Heller was a ruling stating that any proposed gun control legislation would have to pass a strict scrutiny test.

Sam Paredes, along with a lot of gun owners are, I think, being a bit too optimistic about it.

Even if the outcome of Heller was exactly what they wanted, there's still a lot of work that needs to be done in properly challenging blatantly unconstitutional gun laws such as Chicago's ban on handguns or California's ban on so-called "assault weapons."

joe | February 8, 2008, 12:42pm | #

My prediction: the court will rule that there is an individual right to bear arms, that gun laws cannot impose an undue burden on that right, and rule that the DC handgun ban imposes an undue burden on people seeking to keep a gun for self-defense.

It will take several more cases to create a working definition of what the bundle of rights is, and what regulations impose an undue burden.

disarmed | February 8, 2008, 12:45pm | #

[only semi-off topic]

mediageek,

A long while back you posted a link to a bunch of amusing writings (I believe from the '90s) by someone who passed away. I was thinking about them the other day, but could not for the life of me remember the guy's name. I would be most appreciative if you could point me in the right direction.

Episiarch | February 8, 2008, 12:57pm | #

You know, I'm really hopeful for the "individual" view from the court, but this case still really scares me.

Indeed. A court that can find McCain-Feingold constitutional is very scary. If they can't get the 1st Amendment right, how will they get the 2nd?

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 12:58pm | #

disarmed-

That was probably Laissez Firearm aka http://www.thegunzone.com/people/laissezfirearm.html">Mark Penman.

He was truly an under appreciated writer in his day, and his death only served to illustrate just what his potential as one of the new crop of internet-based gun writers could have been.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 12:59pm | #

*sigh*

Let's try that second link again.

J sub D | February 8, 2008, 1:00pm | #

joe,
I agree with your prognostication. Defining undue burden is going to be difficult indeed. As vitrolic as many were over the "assault weapons" ban debate, I wondered what all the noise was about. Semi-automatic weapons remained legal which IMHO caused neither an undue burden or increased public safety.

FWIW, I'm a supporter of the right to bear arms but I'm not a gun aficianado.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 1:04pm | #

I wondered what all the noise was about.

My biggest issue with it was that due to how inanely the bill was written, it would be exceptionally easy for someone who was not cognizant of the ins and outs of the law to inadvertently violate it and thereby commit a felony.

Warren | February 8, 2008, 1:10pm | #

A court that can find McCain-Feingold constitutional is very scary. If they can't get the 1st Amendment right, how will they get the 2nd?

Too true that. In that vein a hundred other travesty of justice cases need to be corrected before we get to the inconvenience of gun control.

J sub D | February 8, 2008, 1:13pm | #

My biggest issue with it was that due to how inanely the bill was written, it would be exceptionally easy for someone who was not cognizant of the ins and outs of the law to inadvertently violate it and thereby commit a felony.

I agree that it was crappilly drafted legislation. Why is it that lawmakers, most of them with post-graduate degrees, are unable to write clear and concise laws? I sometimes think it's just job protection for attorneys.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 1:16pm | #

Warren, when Raich went to the supreme court, I didn't decry that it was a case that could be put off until later because anti-drug laws are just an "inconvenience."

Or the same with Kelo.

Even though pot or property laws aren't where my interests lay, I never decried the fact that the justice system addressed them before my particular pet issue.

Sheeze.

Nick | February 8, 2008, 1:17pm | #

J sub D, would it matter if the laws were clear and concise? They still have to be implemented by bureaucrats not known for understanding the intentions of politicians, even when clearly spelled out.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 1:19pm | #

Why is it that lawmakers, most of them with post-graduate degrees, are unable to write clear and concise laws?

Malice or ignorance, take your pick. Reading some of the justifications they had for restricting this-or-that feature of a weapon truly approaches high comedy.

And then there are the weapons that were banned by name. The law drafters quite literally went through a picture book of guns, and duly recorded the names of all of the scary looking guns, right down to at least one misspelling.

Nick | February 8, 2008, 1:21pm | #

In my county in Upstate NY I would be hard pressed to get a handgun permit for any reason. If I move one county east, north, or west I'd have no problem whatsoever. If I moved one county south, they'd probably lock me up for asking for one because it implies (to them) that I have bad intentions. The decision whether or not to issue a handgun permit isentirely up to the county court judge working that day and his or her interpretation of a 400 page law.

Now, if I want a rifle, all I have to do is go to Walmart and tell them I want to kill a four-legged creature.

Nick | February 8, 2008, 1:23pm | #

Not only that media geek, in NY where most assembleypersons are from the NYC area, they simply give the response (when pertaining to handgun laws I mentioned above) as to why they won't revisit the bill that confuses some judges, "I'd rather have more restriction than less." Journalists have stopped asking why.

joe | February 8, 2008, 1:38pm | #

J sub D,

Semi-automatic weapons remained legal which IMHO caused neither an undue burden or increased public safety.

It will be interesting to see to what degree they Supreme Court will claim for itself the power to make judgement calls about such laws' efficacy.

For example, if a state legislature decides that semi-automatic rifles or 15 round magazines are sufficiently more dangerous than bolt-action rifles or 10 round magazines, and bans those guns, will the courts take it on themselves to make findings of fact about whether the legislature was correct in their judgement.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 1:45pm | #

will the courts take it on themselves to make findings of fact about whether the legislature was correct in their judgement.

Way to go.

Casting a "summon Dave W." spell in the middle of the thread.

Craig | February 8, 2008, 1:47pm | #

Or someone could just show the Justices a dictionary with the definition of "infringed" highlighted....

joe | February 8, 2008, 1:50pm | #

Gee, thanks, Craig.

I was wondering how many comments it would take before "You can't read!" was presented as a serious argument.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 1:54pm | #

Joe, I don't think it's really possible to measure the relative "danger level" of a particular firearm, simply because attempting to measure the lethality of a weapon is, quite frankly so nebulous as to border on the impossible.

Then, of course, you'd get to the point where people would come up with new and improved definitions of "dangerousness" that would be pseudo-scientific at best.

Perhaps we should all simply agree that any firearm is capable of being lethally dangerous, and leave it at that.

What it boils down to is the level of skill of the person wielding said arm.

javier | February 8, 2008, 2:01pm | #

if a state legislature decides that semi-automatic rifles or 15 round magazines are sufficiently more dangerous than bolt-action rifles or 10 round magazines, and bans those guns, will the courts take it on themselves to make findings of fact about whether the legislature was correct in their judgement.


just make sure you buy one before any of that nonsense happens.

joe | February 8, 2008, 2:05pm | #

Mediageek,

I don't think it takes any great leap of logic to conclude that belt-fed machine guns or explosive ordnance are more lethal than .22 pitols, just to take the two extremes.

Similarly, I don't think its quesitonable that an assault rifle modified for full automatic fire is more dangerous than a semi-automatic rifle.

Certainly, the lethality of a weapon is going to vary depending on the user, but that doesn't mean that the skill of the user is the only variable.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 2:12pm | #

Joe-

Snide answer:
Robert Kennedy might have something to say about the relative lethality of a .22


More thoughtful answer:

The problem is that it's certainly not nearly as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

The circumstances of the crime and the skill of the user will always play a bigger part than the weapon being used.

Banning certain types of weapons isn't going to stop crime (as you yourself have stated) and I have to question the wisdom of preventing law-abiding citizens from legally possessing any sort of firearm, especially if it involves locking them up merely for owning a firearm that the powers that be deem to be "too dangerous."

Professor Chaos | February 8, 2008, 2:12pm | #

Prediction:
The court will construe the 2nd as establishing an individual right that the government can override if it has an interest in doing so. Any reason at all will constitute an interest, including a desire to increase tax revenues.

T | February 8, 2008, 2:13pm | #

joe,

That's a pretty good prediction. I don't see the court making the case that all gun control laws are out. There's going to be some restrictions left that will pass constitutional muster. (Insert std disclaimer number whatever about "infringed" and no restrictions, etc) I don't see a sweeping victory out of this court simply because the current court is rather sympathetic to government.

The problem with the assault weapons nonsense is that there is no simple definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon". It's a loaded political term that has no meaning. The closest real definition would be select fire weapons, which are already so tightly regulated as to be absurd.

For a real fun time, try dealing with the Sec 922 R rules on whether or not a gun counts as imported or not. You have to count components and their country of origin. If so many components are made in the US, it's good. If you're off by one, it's imported and therefore illegal. Keep in mind, one of the components you have to count is the magazine. So you can have a weapon where if you insert the wrong magazine the entire firearm is illegal.

Bandwagon Smasher | February 8, 2008, 2:16pm | #

Contrary to what Mr. Levy stated, all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights have not been "incorporated" under the Fourteenth Amendment (applied to the states) by the federal courts. Specifically, the Second, Third, Seventh, and Eighth, have not been expressly incorporated. Whether the Second Amendment is a right that will be incorporated is an open question to be decided by the Supreme Court, and it's not clear that the answer will likely be yes.

Fluffy | February 8, 2008, 2:20pm | #

Professor Chaos is probably correct.

Because after all, even though the Bill of Rights was demanded and specifically enacted in order to make it clear that no power granted under the Constitution was to conflict with the rights enumerated in it, corrupt courts have spent the last two centuries ruling that few of the rights mean what they actually say.

They really should just throw out the Constitution and replace it with the sentence, "If you think you have a good enough reason, do whatever the fuck you want."

Dangerman | February 8, 2008, 2:25pm | #

Mediageek - Regarding your snide-itity, we had a triple murder this summer. The killer walked into a store, and shot the clerk and two customers with a .22 Revolver. All three men died at the scene before police arrived.

Joe - While a full-auto rifle may be capable of spraying more rounds per second, that is not the end all of lethality. Also, FA weapons are already available to the public, you must simply provide a lot of money to the Gummint, and have your background thoroughly checked at several levels. Most citizens who are in favor of relaxing gun control see FA weapons as toys, although they still respect them as dangerous toys. Think "racecar". Do you need to be able to go 190 MPH? No. Can you legally? In a very few regulated areas. Can you still own a car that can go 190 MPH? If you can afford it....

LarryA | February 8, 2008, 2:29pm | #

Why is it that lawmakers, most of them with post-graduate degrees, are unable to write clear and concise laws?

I would guess that at least half of them can, as individuals. It’s writing laws as a 435-person committee that doesn’t work. Then there’s the process of grafting the new law into the volumes of existing law.

Bob Levy has a very strong vested interest in making statements like that. He wants to make this case seem as unthreatening as possible.

Henigan, of course, has a very strong vested interest in making this case seem as threatening as possible. Pot>>Kettle>>Black.

It will take several more cases to create a working definition of what the bundle of rights is, and what regulations impose an undue burden.

I think there will be two additional components in the finding:

1. On the flip side of “undue burden” as I remember, strict construction requires a higher standard when it comes to showing that a law is necessary. The old “this law might save some life somewhere some time” might no longer be adequate to override an established individual right.

2. Establishing RKBA as an individual civil right opens wide the possibility of challenging laws that result in defacto discrimination. For instance the discretionary issuance of licenses to possess or carry firearms where the results are clearly discriminatory.

What it boils down to is the level of skill of the person wielding said arm.

Not really. Motivation is much more important. A skilled rifleman intent on drilling paper bull’s-eyes at 500 yards is not dangerous at all. A gang-banger who hardly knows how to jerk a trigger but is willing to shoot into a crowd is very dangerous.

On a related note, the “Brady Gun-Law Defense Fund” touts “Thank you for making a tax deductible contribution to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence!” (Emphasis added.)

AFAIK lobbying contributions are not tax deductible.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 2:30pm | #

Dangerman-

That's no surprise. Statistically speaking, guns chambered in .22 are one of the most (if not the most) commonly used to commit crimes.

Nick | February 8, 2008, 2:33pm | #

So what Dangerman is saying is: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it. Works for me. Ban all people. People are fuckers.

KD | February 8, 2008, 2:35pm | #

mediageek: Perhaps we should all simply agree that any firearm is capable of being lethally dangerous, and leave it at that.

I don't agree. But thanks for the offer.

Couldn't resist the opportunity to bring up a variation on "guns don't kill - people do) - so to your statement I substitute "... in the hands of a human." for ...and leave it at that.

and from Joe
The circumstances of the crime and the skill of the user will always play a bigger part than the weapon being used.

The circumstances, intent, and effectiveness of the human using the object will always determine the lethality of the weapon being used.

- fixed that for you Joe (and others who forget the difference between inanimate objects and animate operations with intent.)

In 1993, I started an experiment because of certain discussions going on at the time about the "lethality" of various firearms: I picked on of my most "dangerous" fireams, as defined by certain "authorities" (dontcha just love "scare" quotes), a 357 mag revolver, did nothing to restrain it, or prevent it from being what it is (such as chaining, or fencing it in, as as I'd do if it were another "dangerous" item like a dog). I observe it, and was prepared to note any change in its condition or activity.

For some time I waited for it to harm/kill someone - I even, according to the above mentioned "authorities" endangered my childre by conducting this experiment.

As of today the revolver has remained passive and has not threatened harm, or acted any more dangerously than other lumps of metal and wood or plastic in my home. Item such as my hammers, portable drills, meat cleaver, rolling pins, hatchets, baseball bats - I could go on...

I'm still waiting (though somewhat less alert after 15 years I will admit)for that .357 mag, or any one of those items to live up to a reputation as lethal. Potentially lethal -yep- actually so, -nope- not without some input from some human.

KD | February 8, 2008, 2:38pm | #

Nick | February 8, 2008, 2:33pm | #
So what Dangerman is saying is: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it. Works for me. Ban all people. People are fuckers.

Pretty much got it there Nick!

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 2:42pm | #

Not really. Motivation is much more important. A skilled rifleman intent on drilling paper bull’s-eyes at 500 yards is not dangerous at all. A gang-banger who hardly knows how to jerk a trigger but is willing to shoot into a crowd is very dangerous.

Larry, I think that we're pretty well in agreement. I certainly don't labor under the delusion that competitive shooters are any more dangerous than your average citizen.

Perhaps I should have included something about the intent of the shooter, as well as general skill level.

Couldn't resist the opportunity to bring up a variation on "guns don't kill - people do) - so to your statement I substitute "... in the hands of a human." for ...and leave it at that.

Not being one prone to anthropomorphizing inanimate objects, I saw no reason to qualify my statement with "in the hands of a human" as that strikes me as a pretty self-evident qualifier.

joe | February 8, 2008, 2:52pm | #

KD, you didn't fix anything.

All you did was demonstrate that you don't understand the "John is a man" fallacy.

"The circumstances, intent, and effectiveness of the human using the object" are variables that determine a weapon's lethallity. Therefore, all variables that determine a weapons lethality are "the circumstances, intent, and effectiveness of the human using the object."

You get a D.

joe | February 8, 2008, 2:54pm | #

Tell me, KD, do you bring similar logic to your opinion about the dangerousness of laws?

Hey, an authorization for the President to order people tortured isn't dangerous. I can sit here and stare at this piece of paper for years and it won't torture anybody...blah blah blah.

No, of course you don't. Very dishonest argument.

R C Dean | February 8, 2008, 2:55pm | #

Contrary to what Mr. Levy stated, all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights have not been "incorporated" under the Fourteenth Amendment (applied to the states) by the federal courts. Specifically, the Second, Third, Seventh, and Eighth, have not been expressly incorporated. Whether the Second Amendment is a right that will be incorporated is an open question to be decided by the Supreme Court, and it's not clear that the answer will likely be yes.

The only statements on point are a couple of passing mentions in dicta. Both treated the 2A as being on par with the other incorporated amendments.

I would give the odds of incorporation at much better than 50%.

R C Dean | February 8, 2008, 2:58pm | #

The problem with the assault weapons nonsense is that there is no simple definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon".

Very true. Most if not all guns banned as "assault weapons" are functionally identical to perfectly legal semi-auto rifles. Aside from the specific models banned (all of which have functionally identical replacements on the market), what was banned was a bunch of cosmetics like "flash hiders" and "pistol grips".

The most bening interpretation of the assault weapon ban was that it was meaningless feel-good legislation. No small number of its proponents regarded it as an important first step on the proverbial slippery slope of banning more and more guns based on various features.

T | February 8, 2008, 3:04pm | #

Specifically, the Second, Third, Seventh, and Eighth, have not been expressly incorporated.

Has the Third ever been adjudicated? I'm honestly asking. I know it hasn't come up lately.

joe | February 8, 2008, 3:06pm | #

No, the most benign interpretation of the AWB is that its proponents thought about the nightmare scenario of a sombody shooting at people in a crowd in a public place, and tried to ban weapons that would make it easier for him to do so and avoid being stopped.

Flash suppressors make it harder to spot where shots are coming from. Pistol grips on long guns make it easier to hide on under a coat. Large-capacity magazines make it easier to get off more shots before having to reload.

Agree with the law or not, it is possible to hold a different opinion about gun control without it being a secret plot to march all the gun owners off to a camp.

joe | February 8, 2008, 3:10pm | #

Just to save people a lot of furious typing, I don't think the AWB was a good law, and I've already heard the reasons why it was poorly written.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 3:19pm | #

Flash suppressors make it harder to spot where shots are coming from.

Uh...not really. Flash suppressors typically work by venting the gasses in such a way that they don't obscure one's sight picture.

Reducing muzzle flash has a lot more to do with powder than it does with the shape of the doohickey on the end of the muzzle.

Pistol grips on long guns make it easier to hide on under a coat.

Joe, I have a pistol-gripped AR15. You're more than welcome to try to carry it concealed in a manner that is non-obvious, or comfortable for any length of time, if you like.

Large-capacity magazines make it easier to get off more shots before having to reload.

Even someone who's completely unfamiliar with firearms can be taught to execute a sub-three second magazine change. I suppose I'll agree that it's right to lock up law-abiding citizens for possession of stamped sheet metal when it can be shown that a magazine capacity limit actually ever was an effective way to limit the number of people killed.

Agree with the law or not, it is possible to hold a different opinion about gun control without it being a secret plot to march all the gun owners off to a camp.

Except that even though the ban on so-called "assault weapons" had practically zero impact on crime, those who support gun control effectively believe that the justice system is right to punish a citizen who violates the law by, say, customizing a rifle with an adjustable stock.

dhex | February 8, 2008, 3:20pm | #

"Robert Kennedy might have something to say about the relative lethality of a .22"

splat?

i know they probably don't mean to, but the brady center folk really do come off as complete scum.

Isaac Bartram | February 8, 2008, 3:29pm | #

Pistol grips on long guns make it easier to hide on under a coat.

I don't see how. A pistol grip does not make a long gun any shorter or less bulky. Just scarier to some folks.

Perhaps you're thinking of a folding stock.

Many turkey hunters find this shot gun perfectly suited for their sport.

joe | February 8, 2008, 3:30pm | #

Well mediageek, have you considered the possibility that not everyone on Capitol Hill is as brilliant as you, and maybe the law was written poorly in an effort to accomplish perfectly reasonable goals?

Or that maybe you're making things up - for example, by substituting "AR-15" for what I actually wrote, "long gun" - so that you don't have to do the intellectual heavy lifing of reconciling two justified by competing objectives?

I mean, look at this: Even someone who's completely unfamiliar with firearms can be taught to execute a sub-three second magazine change. Um, so what? This is the statement that you are presenting your argument as a rebuttal to: Large-capacity magazines make it easier to get off more shots before having to reload. So...what? Have you ever seen what panicked people full of adrenaline can do in three seconds? Cover almost 100' of ground at a dead run, get around corner, warn a room full of people.

Funny, you hold arguments you don't agree with to godlike levels of precision, but something that kinda-sorta sounds like it might help make your case leads you to accept incredibly sloppy reasoning.

Tell you what, you keep calling firearms "stamped sheet metal," and I'll call the Kelo decision "letters typed on paper," and we laugh at all the fools who think such things are dangerous.

joe | February 8, 2008, 3:33pm | #

Isaac,

A pistol grip does not make a long gun any shorter or less bulky.

I hate this dishonest shit. You KNOW the answer to this objection - you can cut the stock off a rifle with a pistol grip and it will still be usable, and take off almost a foot of length and a great deal of bulk - and you pretend not to so you can make a point.

The fact that gun rights supporters descend into willful dishonesty strongly suggests that they themesleves aren't confident that they are right on the facts.

joe | February 8, 2008, 3:35pm | #

OK, Isaac, for the new car, the trip to Maui, and the bedroom set: would that shotgun be easier to hide under a coat, or harder, if the rifle stock was cut off just behind the grip?

joe | February 8, 2008, 3:39pm | #

How about you, mediageek? See that firearm in the link Isaac provides?

Show us all how honest you are: would that weapon be easier to conceal under a coat if the stock was cut off behind the pistol grip?

A little more intellectual honesty, please. You shouldn't have to lie, dissemble, or play dumb to make your case.

Isaac Bartram | February 8, 2008, 3:40pm | #

Just to save people a lot of furious typing, I don't think the AWB was a good law, and I've already heard the reasons why it was poorly written.

For someone claiming to hold those opinions you certainly spend an awful lot of time defending the law's proponents.

Well mediageek, have you considered the possibility that not everyone on Capitol Hill is as brilliant as you,...

Have you considered the possibility that people should not be legislating on matters about whinch they are so patently ignorant?

...and maybe the law was written poorly in an effort to accomplish perfectly reasonable goals?

Can't speak for mediageek, but no, I have not considered anything like that.

joe | February 8, 2008, 3:42pm | #

So poorly written that its critics have to be misleading to make their case, apparently.

Warty | February 8, 2008, 3:42pm | #

I hate this dishonest shit. You KNOW the answer to this objection - you can cut the stock off a rifle with a pistol grip and it will still be usable, and take off almost a foot of length and a great deal of bulk - and you pretend not to so you can make a point.

I had no idea that you were talking about sawing off the stock. For the record, you can just as easily saw off most of a conventional stock and still have a useful gun.

not sawn off
sawn off

gun rights supporters descend into willful dishonesty

Heaven knows they have a monopoly on that.

joe | February 8, 2008, 3:43pm | #

Heaven knows they have a monopoly on that.?

And there we have it.

It's ok, because everybody else is doing it.

robc | February 8, 2008, 3:44pm | #

Has the Third ever been adjudicated?

IIRC, exactly one case.

joe | February 8, 2008, 3:45pm | #

Can't speak for mediageek, but no, I have not considered anything like that.

And there's the problem. Once you take "this a conspiracy of evil," it just becomes a matter of figuring out HOW, not WHETHER, something is a good idea.

Episiarch | February 8, 2008, 3:46pm | #

joe, haven't you learned not to get specific about guns? You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and it pisses people off. They end up responding by pointing out your mistakes instead of responding to your points.

Here's a suggestion: don't get specific about gun features. That way you won't say stupid things that hobbyists feel a need to correct. If you were a motorhead and I kept referring to a "427 Cobra Jet" you might get annoyed too.

Chris | February 8, 2008, 3:46pm | #

I think that the term "lethality" is being misused a bit here. I think that when people speak of firearm "lethality," they really mean to say, "suitability for combat." Further, suitability for combat is a logical, rational, perfectly normal reason to select one gun over another. If I have to defend my life with a gun, I want the gun to be well-suited to the job.

robc | February 8, 2008, 3:49pm | #

joe,

If the issue was sawing off the stock, why didnt they make a sawn off stock part of the law instead of the pistol grip?

The issue was the pistol grip. Not the stock.

robc | February 8, 2008, 3:51pm | #

BTW, how does a bayonet mount make shooting into a crowd easier?

Did I miss the huge uptick in drive-by bayonettings in the 80s and early 90s that led to that feature being included?

Isaac Bartram | February 8, 2008, 3:51pm | #

And in reply to what you posted while I was typing my response, you can cut the buttstock off any number of shotguns and rifles. you can cut the barrels down too.

Criminals have been doing it for years to get around handgun restrictions. Governments have banned cutting guns down for that reason.

Care to come up with some actual numbers of cases where expensive rifles or shotguns were cut down? Seriously, you're not making sense.

Like I said, for someone claiming to think that the AWB was not a good law you certainly spend an awful lot of time defending the law's proponents.

Dangerman | February 8, 2008, 3:52pm | #

Joe, have you ever tried to fire a long arm with only a pistol grip?

Also, since the "firing into a crowd" argument has been mentioned several times, when has this happened?

It is legal to openly carry a rifle or shotgun in most states where you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Why would your hypothetical maniac bother to conceal his weapon if he only was to shoot randomly? Wouldn't he just open up with what he has? you are supposing a lot of forethought for what is supposed to be a psychopathic criminal bent on a killing spree.
As Warren has pointed out, you can buy a shotgun with a pistol grip, and it isn't covered under the AWB, so the idea that these laws actually would prevent someone from sawing off (?!) a legal stock is a bit silly.

Chris | February 8, 2008, 3:54pm | #

Oh, and Joe? The only intellectual dishonesty here is coming from you. Mediageek used the AR-15 as an example of a long gun with a pistol grip that is not particularly concealable, and you know it.

You also know full well that almost any long gun, pistol grip stock or conventional, can have the stock sawn off to aid in concealment (at the price of making it impossible to shoot accurately.)

Warty | February 8, 2008, 3:55pm | #

Joe, have you ever tried to fire a long arm with only a pistol grip?

Once is enough for a lifetime. Shooting a box of .454 was less painful.

Episiarch | February 8, 2008, 3:58pm | #

Try shooting a riot shotgun (pistol grip only) loaded with 3" shells. I swear I got nerve damage in my right hand. That stopped real quick.

Dangerman | February 8, 2008, 4:01pm | #

See? ^^^^

Isaac Bartram | February 8, 2008, 4:02pm | #

joe, re: cutting down firearms see Warty @ 3:42pm and robc @ 3:49pm.

Both have demolished your "pistol-grip" notion.

Just admit it, the pistol-grip ban is based on the same bullshit reasoning as the rest of the AWB.

Actually, I see everyone else is handling this admirably so I'm done for this thread (unless you come up with something else as preposterous).

Warty | February 8, 2008, 4:03pm | #

I got dared to shoot a 3" deer slug out of a riotgun. No more of that for this kid. Give me M1 thumb anyday.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:06pm | #

Episiarch,

No one's pointed out a mistake yet. As usual, they've deciced to hide behind insider speak to talk about how I have no right to even discuss the issue, because I don't share their hobby, instead of arguing a case with facts and logic.

Chris,

No, not "suitability for combat," in the sense of battlefield usefulness, but suitability for massacre. That seems to have been the central principle - singling weapons on the basis of whether they would make a McDonald's massacre easier.

robc,

If the issue was sawing off the stock, why didnt they make a sawn off stock part of the law instead of the pistol grip? Because the goal was to prevent people from buying weapons that had legal configurations and then changing them into more dangerous weapons by modifiying them at home.

BTW, how does a bayonet mount make shooting into a crowd easier? I don't imagine it does. What it does make easier is stabbing people or fighting them off if they rush you.

Seriously, wtf? I don't need to explain to you why a bayonet makes a rifle more dangerous. I hate this "playing dumb" shit.
I don't do it.

Isaac,

Care to come up with some actual numbers of cases where expensive rifles or shotguns were cut down? No, because I'm not making an argument about the law's effectiveness, but about the plausible nexus that exists between its language and a legitimate purpose. But to be quite blunt, I don't give a rat's ass what you think about my motivations. My motivations, and your perception of them, are completely irrelevant to the question.

Dangerman,

Sign. More playing dumb. Why would your hypothetical maniac bother to conceal his weapon if he only was to shoot randomly? What are you, kidding me? You're actually pretending not to know why someone intending to commit murder might want to conceal his weapon? No, I'm not going to answer that question. Meditate on it for a while.

Jesus fucking Christ. What is wrong with you people, that you are so eager to take refuge is obvious, transparent, wholly-implausible pretenses of ignorance?

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:07pm | #

Chris,

Mediageek used the AR-15 as an example of a long gun with a pistol grip that is not particularly concealable, and you know it.

No, he didn't. He presented that example in order to refute the general case, that making a long gun shorter and less bulky makes it easier to conceal.

I can't believe the willful sloppiness on display here.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 4:08pm | #

Well mediageek, have you considered the possibility that not everyone on Capitol Hill is as brilliant as you, and maybe the law was written poorly in an effort to accomplish perfectly reasonable goals?

Joe, if legislators don't know anything about a subject, perhaps they really ought to refrain from drafting legislation until they objectively look at ways to accomplish their goals. Of course, objective and reasoned thought never stopped Carolyn McCarthy.

Or that maybe you're making things up - for example, by substituting "AR-15" for what I actually wrote, "long gun" - so that you don't have to do the intellectual heavy lifing of reconciling two justified by competing objectives?

Or, did you ever consider that perhaps I don't own any other long guns with pistol grips?

I mean, look at this: Even someone who's completely unfamiliar with firearms can be taught to execute a sub-three second magazine change. Um, so what? This is the statement that you are presenting your argument as a rebuttal to: Large-capacity magazines make it easier to get off more shots before having to reload. So...what? Have you ever seen what panicked people full of adrenaline can do in three seconds? Cover almost 100' of ground at a dead run, get around corner, warn a room full of people.

So, it's worth locking up law abiding citizens for possessing a stamped sheet metal box magazine because of what adrenaline-powered heroics that might happen during one of these vanishingly rare spree shootings that are executed with the use of firearms with standard-capacity magazines?

Funny, you hold arguments you don't agree with to godlike levels of precision, but something that kinda-sorta sounds like it might help make your case leads you to accept incredibly sloppy reasoning.

Uh, or perhaps I'm citing specific examples wherein the ban on so-called "assault weapons" had no measurable impact on crime. A viewpoint you yourself have stated.

Tell you what, you keep calling firearms "stamped sheet metal," and I'll call the Kelo decision "letters typed on paper," and we laugh at all the fools who think such things are dangerous.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:10pm | #

Isaac,

Both have demolished your "pistol-grip" notion.

My notion that the reasoning behind the law was that pistol grips made it easier to cut down a long gun and conceal it?

No, no they didn't. What they refuted was the notion that the law was written in a manner that effectively advanced its purpose.

Let's go to the tape: No, the most benign interpretation of the AWB is that its proponents thought about the nightmare scenario of a sombody shooting at people in a crowd in a public place, and tried to ban weapons that would make it easier for him to do so and avoid being stopped.

Flash suppressors make it harder to spot where shots are coming from. Pistol grips on long guns make it easier to hide on under a coat. Large-capacity magazines make it easier to get off more shots before having to reload.

Agree with the law or not, it is possible to hold a different opinion about gun control without it being a secret plot to march all the gun owners off to a camp.

This is not a statement about whether the people who wrote the law produced something effective.

KD | February 8, 2008, 4:12pm | #

Joe:
Tell me, KD, do you bring similar logic to your opinion about the dangerousness of laws?
Yup I do, see below.

Hey, an authorization for the President to order people tortured isn't dangerous. I can sit here and stare at this piece of paper for years and it won't torture anybody...blah blah blah.

No, of course you don't.Very dishonest argument. (tut tut, answering for me - very bad form chum! ...and you are wrong.)

Not dishonest actually, unless I answer the question as you anticipated - and I don't! Yes, the logic remains as far as I am concerned - that piece of paper, or any other, is not dangerous - at least not until one or more humans with intent (and guns, such as a force of armed bureaucrats) act based on the piece of paper - it is the act that determines lethality...

Read Balko's stuff - is the warrant for a search lethal as long as it remains in a file cabinet - or is it the armed bureaucrats, guns ablazing acting upon the warrant that introduce lethality? (I'm tempted to answer for you, figuring I know what it would be, but I'm much too civilized.)

Finally you get it: "The circumstances, intent, and effectiveness of the human using the object" are variables that determine a weapon's lethallity. Therefore, all variables that determine a weapons lethality are "the circumstances, intent, and effectiveness of the human using the object."

You get a D.

Joe, got it right this time, good on ya! Just a couple of little corrections though: Therefore, all variables that determine a weapons anything object's lethality are "the circumstances, intent, and effectiveness of the human using or acting upon the object"

I'll give you a B for stumbling on the right answer, but a C for the overall performance.

And to sum up my position, It doesn't matter what the object is a : (warning, gratuitious alliteration follows) piece of paper, pistol, pair of panties, pencil, popgun, pork chop or whether it has been folded, painted, washed, sharpened, corked, cooked, concealed, unconcealed, or whatever-ed (including sawn off or pistol gripped), it ain't lethal until an act is applied to it by a human.

Go to it Joe...

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 4:12pm | #

OK, Isaac, for the new car, the trip to Maui, and the bedroom set: would that shotgun be easier to hide under a coat, or harder, if the rifle stock was cut off just behind the grip?

If the Benelli M2 is similar to the Benelli M1, sawing off the stock would render the firearm useless as segments of the assembly including the recoil buffer spring are housed in the stock.

Dangerman | February 8, 2008, 4:12pm | #

What are you, kidding me? You're actually pretending not to know why someone intending to commit murder might want to conceal his weapon? No, I'm not going to answer that question. Meditate on it for a while.

No, what I am saying is how does the AWB in any way prevent him from killing people, given that there are few laws banning the OPEN CARRY OF LONG GUNS. The "Killer" could walk into many public spaces with a full length shotgun or rifle, without violating any laws. If he is on a crazy shooting spree, why bother with the obfuscation?

T | February 8, 2008, 4:12pm | #

Warty and Epi,

I admire your fortitude, although not necessarily your brains. I was never dumb enough to try 3" shells of out my 870 when it had the pistol grip on it, and I was pretty damn dumb as a youth.

Episiarch | February 8, 2008, 4:14pm | #

joe, you are quite the insane person. You are the idiot who started using specific firearm details to make your point, and you get huffy when people point out that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Keep digging, joe, you're good at that.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 4:15pm | #

Tell you what, you keep calling firearms "stamped sheet metal," and I'll call the Kelo decision "letters typed on paper," and we laugh at all the fools who think such things are dangerous.

I didn't call firearms that. I called box magazines that. In which case, that's what they are.

I find it quite perverse that during the era of the Clinton gun ban, a person could be arrested, charged with a crime, and jailed, simply for owning a stamped sheet metal box that was made after Sept. 13th, 1994.

The point being that it's absurd to ruin someone's life just for ownership of what amounts to a few bits of metal and plastic.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:15pm | #

Joe, if legislators don't know anything about a subject, perhaps they really ought to refrain from drafting legislation until they objectively look at ways to accomplish their goals.

A much better argument, and an acknowledgement of my point. Please explain this Isaac Bertram.

Or, did you ever consider that perhaps I don't own any other long guns with pistol grips?

No, because your personal details are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Imagine that, talking about facts without your opinion depending on your perception of somebody else.

So, it's worth locking up law abiding citizens for... You'll have to take that up with somebody who thinks the law was a good idea.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:17pm | #

OK, KD, I'll go to it:

"If on the right people were in charge!"

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 4:18pm | #

This is not a statement about whether the people who wrote the law produced something effective.

I find your defense of people who ignorantly drafted deeply flawed and demonstrably ineffective legislation that had the potential to criminalize hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens to be very odd.

Dangerman | February 8, 2008, 4:18pm | #

Joe, you simply don't know what you are talking about. you are citing facts that are incorrect, and refusing to acknowledge this.

Flash suppressors make it harder to spot where shots are coming from.

FALSE. Flash suppressors function by redirecting the muzzle flash away from the sights and eyes of the shooter. A person on the receiving end would see little to no difference in flash.

Pistol grips on long guns make it easier to hide on under a coat

Even if this IS true, it is not the primary function of a pistol grip, which is ergonomics and stability. Sawing a barrel down to a ridiculously short length would be more effective for concealment and for firing, and there are already laws that cover this, aside from the AWB.

nightmare scenario of a sombody shooting at people in a crowd in a public place

Again, joe, please linky linky to a factual account of this happening. Please.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:18pm | #

If the Benelli M2 is similar to the Benelli M1, sawing off the stock would render the firearm useless as segments of the assembly including the recoil buffer spring are housed in the stock.

Like I said, hiding behind geek-speak to avoid uncomfortable facts. You KNOW that guns with stocks are cut down by criminals to make them more concealable, but you're too intellectually dishonest to even admit that.

Pathetic.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:21pm | #

Dangerman,

Once again, are you kidding me?

Look, I'll give you one more chance: why might somebody who intends to commit murder want to conceal his weapon?

Come on, use your imagination: how might things go differently if someone walks up to a McDonald's with a rifle in his his hands for everyone to see vs. with it under his coat?

I don't believe for a moment you need me to answer this question for you. Not playing.

Dangerman | February 8, 2008, 4:21pm | #

You KNOW that guns with stocks are cut down by criminals to make them more concealable, but you're too intellectually dishonest to even admit that.

No, YOU know this, you with no knowledge about actual technical details that even a hobbiest gun-owner would understand. And, by the by, I can legally cut my stock however I want, as the shotgun in Warrens link was cut. It is cutting the barrel that is illegal.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:22pm | #

joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe joe

Warty | February 8, 2008, 4:22pm | #

I'm a pretty big dumbass, T, and I have a bottomless capacity for self-inflicted pain. I'm gonna go rock climbing in a few hours and almost certainly open up the blisters on my hands. It'll be sweet.

I find it quite perverse that during the era of the Clinton gun ban, a person could be arrested, charged with a crime, and jailed, simply for owning a stamped sheet metal box that was made after Sept. 13th, 1994.

I've heard that no one actually was charged with simple possession alone. Any charges were just add-ons to drug dealers and such. It would be interesting to know if that wasn't the case.

You KNOW that guns with stocks are cut down by criminals to make them more concealable,

Yes. I've never heard anyone besides you say that the pistol grip part of the AWB was supposed to make it harder to make a useful sawn-down weapon. Where did you hear this?

Episiarch | February 8, 2008, 4:22pm | #

You KNOW that guns with stocks are cut down by criminals to make them more concealable, but you're too intellectually dishonest to even admit that.

joe, you are so out of your depth that it's actually funny. You do understand that you can cut off a stock and shoot a gun whether or not there's a pistol grip involved? I guess not.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Episiarch, if I'm such an idiot, why has nobody even attempted to refute my arguments?

Warty | February 8, 2008, 4:23pm | #

Hey, I learnded a word today. Eristic. I like it.

KD | February 8, 2008, 4:23pm | #

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:17pm | #
OK, KD, I'll go to it:

"If on the right people were in charge!"

Nice side-step, but that ain't the curret topic. (and I suspect you meant "only" the right people)

I'd still disagree and say If only the "right" (whatever that means) people owned guns. If only people didn't harbor animosity to their fellows. If only the planet was a nice mellow harmonious place.

If only... one of the most victimy and useless gathering of words in the English language...!

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:24pm | #

Dangerman,

Google Stockton California AK-47.

Google McDonald's Massacre.

You play more dumb than anyone I've ever argued with.

Warty | February 8, 2008, 4:25pm | #

Episiarch, if I'm such an idiot, why has nobody even attempted to refute my arguments?

joe-gun threads get so quickly bogged down with feces-flinging and geekspeak that the point is quickly lost and nobody remembers what they're arguing about. What are those arguments again?

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 4:26pm | #

No, because your personal details are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Imagine that, talking about facts without your opinion depending on your perception of somebody else.

Ok, here we go again:
I wasn't attempting to obfuscate anything.

Tell you what, how about you go find any long gun with no stock and a pistol grip, and undertake an attempt to carry it concealed for any length of time, and get back to me with how easy you were able to do so.

Like I said, hiding behind geek-speak to avoid uncomfortable facts. You KNOW that guns with stocks are cut down by criminals to make them more concealable, but you're too intellectually dishonest to even admit that.

So, technical details of particular makes and models of firearm are completely irrelevant to the discussion?

Truly that is the mentality under which practically all gun control legislation germinates.

I find it odd that when such discussions come up, those who possess the most applicable technical understanding are the first to be shunned. Much as you've demonstrated in this thread.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:26pm | #

I'm done.

Too many cowards more interested in congratulating themselves for knowing a lot about a hobby, too little interest in honest and principled discussion.

Pathetic.

Episiarch | February 8, 2008, 4:26pm | #

joe, you're an idiot because you don't realize how stupid your arguments make you look.

Dangerman | February 8, 2008, 4:27pm | #

OK, Joe, but my point remains unanswered: He can legally carry a full length gun up to that hypothetical Mickey-D's. Why wouldn't he? Someone would call the cops, and he would say "Hey I can do this legally." And that would be that.

Look, I'll give you one more chance: why might somebody who intends to commit murder want to conceal his weapon?

Joe, we allow people to conceal weapons. Concealing a weapon is already permitted and legal. What else have you got?

Chris | February 8, 2008, 4:27pm | #

Joe -

Not true. You are making mistakes due to your apparent ignorance of shooting technique and culture.

I'm fairly sure that Mediageek (and feel free to chime in on this, btw) presented the AR-15 as an example of a long gun with a pistol grip that is not easily concealed.

Important point here - the 1994 VCCA referenced a (from memory, so spare me the cites) "...pistol grip that protrudes from the bottom of the weapon..."

Note that the Act says nothing about the presence or absence of a stock, the removal of which would make the firearm somewhat more concealable.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:29pm | #

mediageek,

So, technical details of particular makes and models of firearm are completely irrelevant to the discussion?

YES!!!!!! In a discussion of the purpose behind a law, technical details are wholly and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Nobody's shunning you for knowing a lot about your hobby. I'm shunning you because you're hiding behind your technical knowledge to dodge the issue being debated.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 4:29pm | #

Joe, if a person is bent on committing a spree crime, do you really think that a law banning pistol grips is going to stop him from cutting a gun down as shown in Warty's previous post?

Or from substituting another firearm such as a handgun?

Dangerman | February 8, 2008, 4:29pm | #

From Wiki: "Huberty used a 9mm Uzi semi-automatic (the primary weapon fired in the massacre), a Winchester pump-action twelve-gauge shotgun, and a 9mm Browning HP in the restaurant,"

Soooo, no pistol grips here, just the one on the....pistol. And no mention of any concealment.
Strike 1

Episiarch | February 8, 2008, 4:29pm | #

I'm done.

I knew that statement was too good to be true.

Dangerman | February 8, 2008, 4:31pm | #

RE: Stockton - No mention of concealment in any article I could find. And BTW, they make Kalashnikovs without pistol grips.

...cowards....

Ok Tuff Guy!

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 4:31pm | #

YES!!!!!! In a discussion of the purpose behind a law, technical details are wholly and completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Truly we have now spun off into a completely different universe.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:32pm | #

Jeebus, Dangerman.

I didn't want to talk to you like you were a fool, but you leave me little choice.

Why wouldn't he?

Because people would LEAVE. They would suspect what he was up to, consider the situation dangerous, and leave. Or, they would call the police, and when the suicidal psycho starts shooting, he will have less time, because the police will show up faster.

I don't believe for a second this is confusing.

Warty | February 8, 2008, 4:32pm | #

The Uzi has a pistol grip, Dangerman. Unless there's some bizarro version of the Uzi that doesn't have one, but that seems pretty much impossible with the way those things work.

Seriously, though. What was the argument that joe was trying to have, before we ruined everything?

TrickyVic | February 8, 2008, 4:32pm | #

""""The circumstances, intent, and effectiveness of the human using the object" are variables that determine a weapon's lethallity."""

Actually, none of those metrics apply to the lethallity of the weapon its self.

A firearm is considered a lethal force as opposed to non-lethal force.

In a attempt to determine the difference of lethallity between weapons, the test paramaters of the individual must be consistant.

Chris | February 8, 2008, 4:33pm | #

"You KNOW that guns with stocks are cut down by criminals to make them more concealable..."

I do know this, but I don't care. Nor do I understand why I should care.

What criminals do with their guns has no bearing whatsoever on what I should be able to do with mine.

KD | February 8, 2008, 4:33pm | #

Warty | February 8, 2008, 4:23pm | #
Hey, I learnded a word today. Eristic. I like it.

Me too. Kinda rolls off the tongue.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:26pm | #
I'm done.

Too many cowards more interested in congratulating themselves for knowing a lot about a hobby, too little interest in honest and principled discussion.

Pathetic.

Hey Joe is that (Eristic) your last name? It doesn't sound Irish.

ChicagoTom | February 8, 2008, 4:35pm | #

Seriously, though. What was the argument that joe was trying to have, before we ruined everything?

Apparently joe's point was that even the the AWB was a bad and ineffective law, the proponents had good intentions so he doesn't hold an ill will towards the proponents.

And then a bunch of other people started showing how despite the intentions of the proponents, the actual rules were stupid and ineffective.

That pretty much sums it up right?


What was that saying about the road to hell and god intentions?

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 4:35pm | #

Having shot an UZI, I can tell you they're exceptionally cumbersome, and the likelihood of successfully concealing one (with a shotgun even!) is practically nonexistent.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:36pm | #

mediageek,

Joe, if a person is bent on committing a spree crime, do you really think that a law banning pistol grips is going to stop him from cutting a gun down as shown in Warty's previous post?

I don't think it would deter him, no. I'll plead agnosticism on whether having a pistol grip makes it easier to cut down a gun while keeping it usable. Once again, I'm not arguing that the law was well-written. I think it was not, and if you were only arguing that point, I wouldn't disagree with you.

It's the unwarranted leap of logic - because the law was poorly written for its purpose, that means it had some other, nefarious purpose - that I was taking exception to.

Warty | February 8, 2008, 4:37pm | #

Having shot an UZI, I can tell you they're exceptionally cumbersome,

I once shot a full-auto one. WITH A SUPRESSOR! So much fucking fun. Clack clack clack whump whump whump.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 4:38pm | #

Joe, I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat.

While there is plenty of evidence that those who supported the ban on so-called "assault weapons" were and are prohibitionists of the worst kind, I believe I've pretty much stuck to the facts of the law, it's horrendous effect on lawful gun owners, and it's all around ineffectiveness in stopping crime.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:39pm | #

Chicago Tom,

That pretty much sums it up right?

Sadly, it does not.

RC Dean made the point that, because the details of the law were ineffective in accomplishing its purpose, we should assume that its stated purpose was a pretext for...and then some sort of slipperly slope argument.

I pointed out that there is a much more plausible explanation for why people supported the law.

And then several people decided that "you don't know about guns" was somehow a relevant rejoinder.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 4:40pm | #

I once shot a full-auto one. WITH A SUPRESSOR! So much fucking fun. Clack clack clack whump whump whump.

The one I shot wasn't suppressed, but it was a FA owned by a guy who's a collector and had jumped through the (arguably egregious) hoops to own one.

Chris | February 8, 2008, 4:40pm | #

I hardly think a law has to be made with bad intentions, for me to feel a justified sense of outrage at the drafters.

One could argue, for instance, that the Iraq War was started with only the best of intentions...

Nick (playing Joe since he left) | February 8, 2008, 4:41pm | #

"I find your defense of people who ignorantly drafted deeply flawed and demonstrably ineffective legislation that had the potential to criminalize hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens to be very odd."

I had to come up with something. They were written by Democrats! It's my jawb.

Warty | February 8, 2008, 4:42pm | #

because the law was poorly written for its purpose, that means it had some other, nefarious purpose

Mistrusting lawmakers seems like a perfectly good default position to me.

Though at some point as I got older, I realized that the people who disagree with me aren't evil. An awkward realization, that.

joe's probably evil, though. Fucking papist micks.

joe | February 8, 2008, 4:46pm | #

Now that the conversation had come back to Planet Earth:

It is very easy to defeat the argument "People who support gun control laws are scheming ideologues who have a secret agenda of taking away everybody's guns." All you need to do is show one weepy victim's mother and one non-absolutist gun owner, and the dark mutterings about secret plots look mean and ridiculous.

mediageek | February 8, 2008, 4:46pm | #

Except that I don't recall making that argument.

KD | February 8, 2008, 4:48pm | #

RC Dean made the point that, because the details of the law were ineffective in accomplishing its purpose, we should assume that its stated purpose was a pretext for...and then some sort of slipperly slope argument.

I pointed out that there is a much more plausible explanation for why people supported the law.

The law was ineffective because it focussed on the object. Lots of laws on the books about actions already. Laws aimed at specific objects will always be ineffective and historically only introduced by folks with a social, moral, or simply evil agenda.

And then several people decided that "you don't know about guns" was somehow a relevant rejoinder.

You're right, it ain't relevant to the 2d Amendment, or the writing of laws issue, but Joe, you did bring up a bunch of half-assed stuff that challenges folks "who do know about guns" so they responded. Possible solution: stick to the issue.

ChicagoTom | February 8, 2008, 4:50pm | #

And then several people decided that "you don't know about guns" was somehow a relevant rejoinder.

If someone is explaining the rationale behind a piece of legislation...let's say the rationale behind banning a pistol grip, wouldn't it be relevant to the discussion to know whether the explainer is actually informed about the subject matter he is explaining? Otherwise the explainer is merely acting like he knows what the mindset/thought process of the lawmaker is.

If someone is gonna say "X Y Z was banned because it makes it easier to do A B C with a gun" then said some should have knowledge about guns and the X Y Z that is being banned -- otherwise they are just talking out of their ass.

Episiarch | February 8, 2008, 4:52pm | #

Hey, let's have an argument with joe regarding city planning. Let's then make completely ignorant remarks about said planning, which we know nothing about, and when joe points out our mistakes, we can chastise joe for pointing out that we don't know what the hell we're talking about.

Come on, it'll be fun!

ChicagoTom | February 8, 2008, 4:52pm | #

I pointed out that there is a much more plausible explanation for why people supported the law.

The most plausible explanation is that the people supporting the laws didn't care about effectiveness or usefulness of the law. They merely wanted to score political points with certain special interest and certain segments of society.

I think that the law was not only ineffective, but the rationale behind was not at all well intent