1. Locking doors doesn't work. A breaching round in a shotgun will take care of doors.
2. Thirty round magazines are standard capacity, not extended.
3. Unarmed staff are just targets. If the principal had been armed, this incident would have ended as it was beginning.
4. Changing out magazines takes a second or so. Even if the magazines held only ten rounds, the result would have been the same. Look at videos of people who know about guns, rather than taking what Maddow says.
5. Cruz's lecture is spot on; Frankenstein had a hissy fit and didn't respond to the logic that Cruz gave.
6. Frankenstein should look up the meaning of "implode." Of course, she doesn't know what "prohibit" or "respect" means, seemingly, so we shouldn't be surprised.
7. Maddow, it's not because Frankenstein is female. It's because she's offering tyranny. If you can't stand the game, stay in the bleachers.
8. The shooter in San Francisco used a revolver, but Frankenstein wants to ban rifles.
9. If you gut the Constitution, it doesn't survive. It may linger, but it doesn't survive.
10. The mother in Connecticut could have bought pre-ban magazines even if the original Assault Weapons Ban had been renewed.
With respect to number 10, the mother of Lanza, could not have legally sought after a pre-ban magazine (over ten rounds), as the State of Connecticut has prohibited the transfer of such enumerated "Assault Weapons" and "high capacity" magazines since 1989.
The State in question had already implemented the statutes that are being proposed in an act of futility and simian grandstanding.
With respect to number 5, you're out of your mind. In fact I think you're lying through your keyboard. You can't possibly have thought he was spot on when several people pointed out that no rights are absolute. His whole bogus argument was based on that.
It wasn't a matter of whether rights are absolute or not, it's a matter of whether Congress can pick specific objects that are protected and others that are not when there is NO rationale between choices.
I've challenged you on this before, and neither you nor your cohorts have given an answer, so I'll ask again. Why should the Tactical Model of the Mini-14 be listed, by name, as prohibited, and the other models listed, by name, as exempt?
Give us an argument that shows why the one model should fit in an unprotected class similar to child pornography fitting into an unprotected class.
Also, make an argument for why the exempt models should be exempt even though they violate the 1 feature test (barrel shroud) and why this does not destroy the integrity of the class.
If you cannot make this argument, then all your grandstanding and foot stomping are in vain, and the law falls under Cruz's analogy regarding picking out books that are allowed and ones that aren't.
"it's a matter of whether Congress can pick specific objects that are protected and others that are not when there is NO rationale between choices."
Oh, now you're throwing another thing into it, the "rationale."
I think I know what you mean, and you're wrong. The kiddie-porn addict may firmly believe there's no "rationale" between his printed material and Time magazine. Congress may disagree. Same goes for your beloved fetish item, the AR-15.
As sick as it would be, if someone made "kiddie" porn with computer graphics, it would be free expression. To make the real thing requires using children in sex acts. That's the difference. The First Amendment doesn't protect taking pictures of a crime that you're committing.
In the same sense, as long as I'm not harming innocent people, Congress has no business regulating what I do.
No, Mike, I'm not throwing something into the mix. I'm asking you to justify the law you want based on the established tests of Constitutionality of actions.
If you can't, just say so. As is, all you've done is accused me of sexual deviance and asserted that assault weapons can be banned. A judge would laugh you out of a courtroom with that kind of argument.
1. 30 round magazines are the standard capacity--calling them extended is dishonest.
2. Previous reports showed many magazines that still had half or more of their rounds in them because he would shoot at the other teachers, reload, and move on. He didn't use that full 30 round capacity apparently. Reloading doesn't take that long and isn't so easy to screw up in an AR. There is no evidence that it would have made a whit of difference in this case.
3. It's a lie to say that the expiration of the AWB of '94 allowed Lanza to have the AR. He used a Post Ban one that was compliant with the '94 law. As for not being able to get the magazines--There were so many of the 30 rounders in circulation before '94 that those were still available at low prices like $15 each THROUGHOUT the entire 10 years of the ban. In places like NY and CT that have their own AWB's in place, limiting people to 10 round magazines (Pre NY SAFE Act) and grandfathered magazines, they're staying well supplied with the pre-'94 AR magazines even today.
The standard sizes are 20 and 30. That's a fact when you look at what's available and at the fact that the gun was developed for 20 round magazines and then upgraded to a 30 round standard.
The other time I said that a statement was a lie, I backed it up.
I would challenge you to argue against the points I made, but apparently you can't, so you just take petty offense that I would call lies lies.
What is your obsession with number of rounds? A hundred-round magazine doesn't work as well. They jam more often than standard mags. But changing out a magazine is esay. You just want to make gun ownership difficult.
Red herring and false Mike. The 20 and 30 rounders were what the gun was designed to fire and are the standard equipment. The drums are rarely used, extended capacity magazines that you buy separately and that can properly be called extended capacity. (This doesn't mean it's proper to ban them, just that you can rationally call by your favorite term.)
And one more time, now that that red herring has been dispatched, Can you argue with the points I made, or are you only capable of slinging poo as a diversion.
Another point was brought up by the graphic with Feinstein's words re aren't these two thousand some guns enough. I've said before that her law is an embarrassing exercise in poor drafting, and this is one of the areas that most offends good practice.
First, her law sets out and bans certain types of semi-autos. Then it exempts certain semi-autos by name. The ban criteria are badly drafted, but we'll skip that for now.
She then goes on for page after page listing other guns that are exempt from the law, except they are pump action, lever action, bolt action, and single shot firearms. None of these would be affected by the bill, so exempting them is window dressing.
Except that she constantly refers to them, saying things about "Aren't these enough for people to have?" She seems to think that her bill bans all guns except those she exempts. By its language, it doesn't, though I could see the ATF trying to enforce it as if it did.
It's either piss poor drafting or an attempt at back door gun control, limiting people to only the guns on the list.
How about answering the Mini-14 question? That really sums up the capricious argument that we have quite well. Why is the Mini-14 Ranch OK, and the Min-14 Tactical not? Or better yet, why is the Mini-14 Target not? That one is specifically marketed towards bench shooters.
Here is where the child pron angle falls apart- it clashes with someone else’s rights. This is what you hear so often from freedom lovers, that we have the right to live our lives as we chose, but the exercising of our rights stops when it violates someone else’s rights. It involves manipulation and exploitation of a minor. We have age of consent laws that this type of material automatically breaks. Age of consent laws are not perfect (there is no one age where everything comes together), but this type of law has to have clear boundaries, and date of birth is quite clear.
So the question posed is, because we have bans on child pron, does that make it constitutional to ban adult porn? Or just types of adult porn (while expressly exempting 2200 titles of smut which should be plenty for anyone’s lonely Saturday nights)? Is it constitution to ban gay porn? You see those examples do not meet the same scrutiny test of the banned material, and liberals ought to agree.
The question is not whether banning certain types of books and magazines is comparable to banning certain types of guns. The question is how could Cruz be so wrong as to insist that there are NO RESTRICTIONS on the 1st Amendment and still you guys applaud him? That's the question.
About the Mimi 14, I don't know and I don't really give a shit if there are inconsistencies in the AWB.
You may not care if there are inconsistencies. The importance of pointing out gross inconsistencies, especially in a bill from a veteran senator with a long history of fighting for a particular end or concept, is that it calls into question her goals and motives for pushing the bill as well as her knowledge of the subject about which she expresses so much passion.
Well there you go. You don't care if the Assault Weapons Ban makes sense. You just want something banned. And you wonder why I keep insisting that a total ban is the ultimate goal.
The First Amendment doesn't protect your right to harm innocent people. No reasonable person says otherwise. Child porn harms innocents. But the First Amendment does protect someone who advocates for child porn, so long as the person does not engage in the act.
Guns are the same. As long as I don't shoot or threaten an innocent person, I'm doing nothing wrong by owning an AR-15 or an M-16 or a Barrett .50 or a muzzle-loader.
He never said there are "no restrictions" on the first amendment. He was however, implying that you can't arbitrarily ban books. Your admission that the mini-14 issue is an inconsistency shows how arbitrary the AWB is, and how that would never pass the scrutiny applied to the first amendment.
These guys just whipped you in logical argument. At least you finally addressed the question I had raised regarding Mini-14's.
You say you don't care about inconsistencies. Well, those inconsistencies will render your precious AWB unconstitutional for vagueness and capriciousness before the Second Amendment issue is even reached.
Learn how the law works and how courts evaluate it, or you will fail over and over.
Well, Mike, It's been a few days and you never answered the questions I posed. You threw some red herrings a few times and otherwise refused to play ball.
I guess that's what passes as debate from you.
Pretty pitiful that you have all these opinions but are incapable or unwilling to back them up.
You must be living in a dream world. I back up my opinions every single day on this blog. Did you pose a question that you feel was so devastatingly intelligent that I cowered from even answering it? Is it still about the Mini 14?
Please get over yourself and open you mind. There's more to the world than you little gun fetish.
The Mini-14 issue is but ONE of the issues you made unfounded statements on. You also tossed red herrings rather than arguing against any of the points of contention we had with Maddow's false or twisted statements.
You, like Maddow, also made fun of Cruz for being a boob who believes in absolute rights. When we pointed out the proper constitutional analysis, you accused us of deviance and flung insults rather than arguing the points raised.
As for the rest of the blog, you certainly throw out a bunch of opinions, but back them up? Hah! You post news stories and opine on the likelihood of the shooter having a carry permit. You brag about bills that have been proposed, but you refuse to defend them in any way more than by wiping your feet on the Constitution and claiming that the Second Amendment doesn't matter anymore, but that the First is still Vital!
You toss slurs, insults, accusations of criminality and lying, and then turn around and pat us on the head in a condescending way because you're only talking about those other bad people, not us, your favorite, honorable and responsible little gun owners for whom you only want the best.
Anonymous, would you please give youself a name so we can distinguish your comments from the others. That would help me have the meaningful discussion you say you want.
1. Locking doors doesn't work. A breaching round in a shotgun will take care of doors.
ReplyDelete2. Thirty round magazines are standard capacity, not extended.
3. Unarmed staff are just targets. If the principal had been armed, this incident would have ended as it was beginning.
4. Changing out magazines takes a second or so. Even if the magazines held only ten rounds, the result would have been the same. Look at videos of people who know about guns, rather than taking what Maddow says.
5. Cruz's lecture is spot on; Frankenstein had a hissy fit and didn't respond to the logic that Cruz gave.
6. Frankenstein should look up the meaning of "implode." Of course, she doesn't know what "prohibit" or "respect" means, seemingly, so we shouldn't be surprised.
7. Maddow, it's not because Frankenstein is female. It's because she's offering tyranny. If you can't stand the game, stay in the bleachers.
8. The shooter in San Francisco used a revolver, but Frankenstein wants to ban rifles.
9. If you gut the Constitution, it doesn't survive. It may linger, but it doesn't survive.
10. The mother in Connecticut could have bought pre-ban magazines even if the original Assault Weapons Ban had been renewed.
Greg,
DeleteWith respect to number 10, the mother of Lanza, could not have legally sought after a pre-ban magazine (over ten rounds), as the State of Connecticut has prohibited the transfer of such enumerated "Assault Weapons" and "high capacity" magazines since 1989.
The State in question had already implemented the statutes that are being proposed in an act of futility and simian grandstanding.
With respect to number 5, you're out of your mind. In fact I think you're lying through your keyboard. You can't possibly have thought he was spot on when several people pointed out that no rights are absolute. His whole bogus argument was based on that.
DeleteIt wasn't a matter of whether rights are absolute or not, it's a matter of whether Congress can pick specific objects that are protected and others that are not when there is NO rationale between choices.
DeleteI've challenged you on this before, and neither you nor your cohorts have given an answer, so I'll ask again. Why should the Tactical Model of the Mini-14 be listed, by name, as prohibited, and the other models listed, by name, as exempt?
Give us an argument that shows why the one model should fit in an unprotected class similar to child pornography fitting into an unprotected class.
Also, make an argument for why the exempt models should be exempt even though they violate the 1 feature test (barrel shroud) and why this does not destroy the integrity of the class.
If you cannot make this argument, then all your grandstanding and foot stomping are in vain, and the law falls under Cruz's analogy regarding picking out books that are allowed and ones that aren't.
"it's a matter of whether Congress can pick specific objects that are protected and others that are not when there is NO rationale between choices."
DeleteOh, now you're throwing another thing into it, the "rationale."
I think I know what you mean, and you're wrong. The kiddie-porn addict may firmly believe there's no "rationale" between his printed material and Time magazine. Congress may disagree. Same goes for your beloved fetish item, the AR-15.
As sick as it would be, if someone made "kiddie" porn with computer graphics, it would be free expression. To make the real thing requires using children in sex acts. That's the difference. The First Amendment doesn't protect taking pictures of a crime that you're committing.
DeleteIn the same sense, as long as I'm not harming innocent people, Congress has no business regulating what I do.
No, Mike, I'm not throwing something into the mix. I'm asking you to justify the law you want based on the established tests of Constitutionality of actions.
DeleteIf you can't, just say so. As is, all you've done is accused me of sexual deviance and asserted that assault weapons can be banned. A judge would laugh you out of a courtroom with that kind of argument.
I invite you to try again.
1. 30 round magazines are the standard capacity--calling them extended is dishonest.
ReplyDelete2. Previous reports showed many magazines that still had half or more of their rounds in them because he would shoot at the other teachers, reload, and move on. He didn't use that full 30 round capacity apparently. Reloading doesn't take that long and isn't so easy to screw up in an AR. There is no evidence that it would have made a whit of difference in this case.
3. It's a lie to say that the expiration of the AWB of '94 allowed Lanza to have the AR. He used a Post Ban one that was compliant with the '94 law. As for not being able to get the magazines--There were so many of the 30 rounders in circulation before '94 that those were still available at low prices like $15 each THROUGHOUT the entire 10 years of the ban. In places like NY and CT that have their own AWB's in place, limiting people to 10 round magazines (Pre NY SAFE Act) and grandfathered magazines, they're staying well supplied with the pre-'94 AR magazines even today.
Everyone whose opinion differs from yours is lying and dishonest, is that it?
DeleteThe standard sizes are 20 and 30. That's a fact when you look at what's available and at the fact that the gun was developed for 20 round magazines and then upgraded to a 30 round standard.
DeleteThe other time I said that a statement was a lie, I backed it up.
I would challenge you to argue against the points I made, but apparently you can't, so you just take petty offense that I would call lies lies.
By that same biased and twisted thinking, the 100-round drum is standard too.
DeleteWhat is your obsession with number of rounds? A hundred-round magazine doesn't work as well. They jam more often than standard mags. But changing out a magazine is esay. You just want to make gun ownership difficult.
DeleteCome on, Mike. You accuse people of lying on a regular basis. You're hardly in a position of moral superiority on that issue.
DeleteRed herring and false Mike. The 20 and 30 rounders were what the gun was designed to fire and are the standard equipment. The drums are rarely used, extended capacity magazines that you buy separately and that can properly be called extended capacity. (This doesn't mean it's proper to ban them, just that you can rationally call by your favorite term.)
DeleteAnd one more time, now that that red herring has been dispatched, Can you argue with the points I made, or are you only capable of slinging poo as a diversion.
Another point was brought up by the graphic with Feinstein's words re aren't these two thousand some guns enough. I've said before that her law is an embarrassing exercise in poor drafting, and this is one of the areas that most offends good practice.
ReplyDeleteFirst, her law sets out and bans certain types of semi-autos. Then it exempts certain semi-autos by name. The ban criteria are badly drafted, but we'll skip that for now.
She then goes on for page after page listing other guns that are exempt from the law, except they are pump action, lever action, bolt action, and single shot firearms. None of these would be affected by the bill, so exempting them is window dressing.
Except that she constantly refers to them, saying things about "Aren't these enough for people to have?" She seems to think that her bill bans all guns except those she exempts. By its language, it doesn't, though I could see the ATF trying to enforce it as if it did.
It's either piss poor drafting or an attempt at back door gun control, limiting people to only the guns on the list.
Maddow, perfect example of a hysterical little girl.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
How about answering the Mini-14 question? That really sums up the capricious argument that we have quite well. Why is the Mini-14 Ranch OK, and the Min-14 Tactical not? Or better yet, why is the Mini-14 Target not? That one is specifically marketed towards bench shooters.
ReplyDeleteHere is where the child pron angle falls apart- it clashes with someone else’s rights. This is what you hear so often from freedom lovers, that we have the right to live our lives as we chose, but the exercising of our rights stops when it violates someone else’s rights. It involves manipulation and exploitation of a minor. We have age of consent laws that this type of material automatically breaks. Age of consent laws are not perfect (there is no one age where everything comes together), but this type of law has to have clear boundaries, and date of birth is quite clear.
So the question posed is, because we have bans on child pron, does that make it constitutional to ban adult porn? Or just types of adult porn (while expressly exempting 2200 titles of smut which should be plenty for anyone’s lonely Saturday nights)? Is it constitution to ban gay porn? You see those examples do not meet the same scrutiny test of the banned material, and liberals ought to agree.
The question is not whether banning certain types of books and magazines is comparable to banning certain types of guns. The question is how could Cruz be so wrong as to insist that there are NO RESTRICTIONS on the 1st Amendment and still you guys applaud him? That's the question.
DeleteAbout the Mimi 14, I don't know and I don't really give a shit if there are inconsistencies in the AWB.
You may not care if there are inconsistencies. The importance of pointing out gross inconsistencies, especially in a bill from a veteran senator with a long history of fighting for a particular end or concept, is that it calls into question her goals and motives for pushing the bill as well as her knowledge of the subject about which she expresses so much passion.
DeleteWell there you go. You don't care if the Assault Weapons Ban makes sense. You just want something banned. And you wonder why I keep insisting that a total ban is the ultimate goal.
DeleteThe First Amendment doesn't protect your right to harm innocent people. No reasonable person says otherwise. Child porn harms innocents. But the First Amendment does protect someone who advocates for child porn, so long as the person does not engage in the act.
Guns are the same. As long as I don't shoot or threaten an innocent person, I'm doing nothing wrong by owning an AR-15 or an M-16 or a Barrett .50 or a muzzle-loader.
He never said there are "no restrictions" on the first amendment. He was however, implying that you can't arbitrarily ban books. Your admission that the mini-14 issue is an inconsistency shows how arbitrary the AWB is, and how that would never pass the scrutiny applied to the first amendment.
DeleteMike,
DeleteThese guys just whipped you in logical argument. At least you finally addressed the question I had raised regarding Mini-14's.
You say you don't care about inconsistencies. Well, those inconsistencies will render your precious AWB unconstitutional for vagueness and capriciousness before the Second Amendment issue is even reached.
Learn how the law works and how courts evaluate it, or you will fail over and over.
Well, Mike, It's been a few days and you never answered the questions I posed. You threw some red herrings a few times and otherwise refused to play ball.
ReplyDeleteI guess that's what passes as debate from you.
Pretty pitiful that you have all these opinions but are incapable or unwilling to back them up.
You must be living in a dream world. I back up my opinions every single day on this blog. Did you pose a question that you feel was so devastatingly intelligent that I cowered from even answering it? Is it still about the Mini 14?
DeletePlease get over yourself and open you mind. There's more to the world than you little gun fetish.
The Mini-14 issue is but ONE of the issues you made unfounded statements on. You also tossed red herrings rather than arguing against any of the points of contention we had with Maddow's false or twisted statements.
DeleteYou, like Maddow, also made fun of Cruz for being a boob who believes in absolute rights. When we pointed out the proper constitutional analysis, you accused us of deviance and flung insults rather than arguing the points raised.
As for the rest of the blog, you certainly throw out a bunch of opinions, but back them up? Hah! You post news stories and opine on the likelihood of the shooter having a carry permit. You brag about bills that have been proposed, but you refuse to defend them in any way more than by wiping your feet on the Constitution and claiming that the Second Amendment doesn't matter anymore, but that the First is still Vital!
You toss slurs, insults, accusations of criminality and lying, and then turn around and pat us on the head in a condescending way because you're only talking about those other bad people, not us, your favorite, honorable and responsible little gun owners for whom you only want the best.
Anonymous, would you please give youself a name so we can distinguish your comments from the others. That would help me have the meaningful discussion you say you want.
Delete