Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)




"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145488847.086080.302930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145447438.519609.283560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145365430.845689.143320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E7udne3bMKcYkdnZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:Xns97A89035AD47Chopewell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1145303008.978165.245020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

And your inaccurate restatements of my model should embarass
you.

If you put your words on paper and people read them
differently
than
you do, perhaps, changing some of the words or rephrasing some
things
will make it clearer in both of your minds. If you think you
are
developing a perfect model right out of the box, you must
think
you
are Hillary on single payer healthcare.

You are entirely correct. Future drafts will try to eliminate
the
misunderstandings that have crept up over language and what
that
language really means.

I think if you do that, you will find the folks in here more
accomodating.

I certainly would be, but I still see some serious and IMO fatal
flaws
with his model. Specifically the allowance to prohibit any
weapons
suitable for self defense which IMO would become the new
"sporting
purpose" test and which would still leave a huge chunk of our
rights
out
in the cold.

It woud be sort of like coming up with a model for Freedom of the
Press
that would limit publication to those books deemed suitable for
self
developement only. Anything that isn't "self developement" could
be
banned, restricted, or require special permits. Not my view of
what
an
American Firearms policy should be. Because our right to arms
isn't
just
about firearms, nor is our right with firearms just about self
defense.
It's also about defending the state, or depending on
circumstances
overthrowing the state. The weaponary needs to reflect those
missions
as
well and not just the narrow issue of self defense against street
thugs.


And more important, who would be making the decisions about those
criteria
History has shown us that people wanting to restrict are more than
happy
to
become those that define the restrictions.

In my very first draft of the model, I placed a line at automatic
weapons.

So it is your contention that a machine gun can't be used for self
defense?

Here is an example of you inserting your ideas into my words. Despite
your wanting to have any weapon you want, a line has to be drawn
somewhere.

So you assert, however you were most adamant that the line should NOT
include weapons that can be used for self defense. So since you draw a
line
that would prohibit machine guns then it's makes sense to ask you if you
consider machine guns to be unuseable for self defense. Otherwise your
line
doesn't make sense within the context of what you have asserted needs to
be
protected as a "fundimental right".

I'm discussing where the line should be drawn. I don't believe that
crew served and fixed position machine guns fall into the category of
purely "self" defense. They go beyond it. You right to "self" defense
is just that-- no more.

Sorry, but my right to arms exists for much more than to just allow me the
means to defend myself. As such your current line is unacceptable as
unsuitably limited in scope.

I originally drew the line at automatic weapons as
currently defined by law because even the regular infantry soldier is
trained to use controlled bursts or even single fire to increase
accuracy. But in later drafts, I moved the line, because the use of
full automatics is too prevalent to suggest they aren't regular.

You have a couple of problems here. The term machine gun includes both
full
and burst modes of automatic fire. I would think a highly trained member
of
the US military tactical teams would be aware of this basic fact. Second
full automatic is in common and regular use among infantry weapons.
Another
simple fact I would think a highly trained member of the US military
tactical teams would know. Look up the term SAW and note that at least
one
is issued to each squad. As such I don't see how you can possibly defend
the
assertion that is isn't in common and regular military use.

A squad support weapon isn't used for "self" defense--

Tell that to the person holding it who is firing back sith such a weapon at
those shooting at him. I bet he's going to tell you that he's defending
himself.

I will simply note that even within the limits you set you allow exceptions
on what is permissable.

although the
dude who is carrying it may end up needing it for just that.

First you tell me it isn't used for that, then you admit the it may end up
being used for that.

You need to make up your mind which it is and stick to it. You can't have it
both ways.

It's a
squad weapon-- not issued as a regular weapon but a special purpose
weapon issued only to select individuals.

So it's an individual weapon.

It's light support
automatics that are probably the grey area between purely individual
weapons and crew served and fixed position weapons.

See what I mean? You can't even establish in your own mind a line and
consistently apply it. Either it is an individual weapon or it isn't. Since
you have already admitted that individual weapons that can be used in self
defense should be protected then we only need to establish that it can be
used in self defense. Oops, you've already admitted that as well. So as an
individual weapon useable for self defense how can you possibly object to
it's protection within your model?


I have yet to hear
a cogent (non-"shall not be infringed") argument supporting the
individual RKB-SAWs.

IOW, you have heard one, but chose to ignore it.

However, let me give you one. Because I am free. I am free to do that which
I wish without having to seek permission from anyone provided my actions do
not harm nor pose a direct threat of harm to another innocent person.

If you can't understand what freedom is, then maybe that's why your model is
flawed.


(Please see the corrected post after the one you used.)

Doesn't alter the fact that machine gun includes both modes of automatic
fire and the law similarly does not differentiate.

A real rifleman would rarely employ full auto-- and even
militaries have crafted weapons that do no more than burst fire

Which by defintion and legal enforcment is full automatic or commonly
called
a machine gun.

-- to
prevent infantry from needlessly and wastefully spewing out
ammunition.

However, if you are defending your life you aren't needlessly spewing
out
ammunition and if you want to be wasteful in your use of ammunition
who
else
should have anything to say about it? It's YOUR ammunition to waste,
not
stuff bought by the government.


But the use of full automatics with infantry units is too prevalent
to
realistically say that is the usual, regular infantry weapon.

And yet the law makes no distinction because fully automatic and burst
modes. So burst mode guns like the M16A2 are treated like and
restricted
right along side the M16A3.

So by common useage and legal definition you would be prohibiting the
very
weapon that are the standard issue infantry weapon. Because the law
makes
no
distinction between fully automatic and any other form of automatic
fire.
Nor does the term "automatic weapon" which includes any sort of
automatic
fire modes. As such your attempt to redefine YOUR own term to fit only
a
narrow type of automatic weapons is underhanded and less than honest.
Further I note all the "automatic weapons" in the military arsenal
including
ones which are regularly issued to infrantrymen which have "fully
automatic"
modes of fire. Indeed most fire teams include one member carrying just
such
a weapon and to assert that it's unusual or irregular is contrary to
the
facts. I would think that a highly trained member of the US military
tactical teams would be aware of how often and how regular infantrymen
are
issued not just "automatic weapons", but also ones that are capable of
"full
automatic" fire and not just burst mode.

That the law currently doesn't make a distinction bewtween burst fire
and full automatic doesn't mean the model (intended to prompt NEW law)
couldn't.

Except you don't....or are you inventing your own definition of machine
gun?

I'm not making a new "definition"-- I'm differentiating between two
things that are called by the same name but are clearly different.

Yes, they are. So you can understand my confusion when you tell me you're
going to allow machine guns to be restricted but you're not going to
restrict infantry weapons. IOW, you need to clean up your use of the
langauge to reflect what you really mean.



A
burst fire weapon is _not_ a fully automatic weapon-- even if the ATF
has decided to lump them together.

I never claimed it was a full automatic weapon, but you didn't say anything
about allowing the restriction of just full automatic weapons, but automatic
weapons PERIOD. Which includes ALL automatic firing modes. Be they burst or
full. Your attempt to backpedal into a qualifier is noted.


A machine gun is any gun which can fire in an automatic mode, this
included
burst.

I am beginning to seriously doubt your military experience and
possibly
even
membership in.

Again, you didn't read the corrected version of the post.

No I didn't. I answered this post.

And my
military experience isn't the test for my ideas.

No, but you stuck it out there in order to claim authority and now based
on
your comments your military experience is very much in doubt, IMO.

I present ideas meant
to be judged on their merit-- not on me.

Then why did you bring your military experience into play?

Actually, I offered up my military service-- specifically being a team
leader of a tactical team-- in response to comments made about what
tactical teams carry--

And even then you were wrong. Since even military tactical teams carry
sidearms.

when you nitpickers decided to misconstrue and
focus on an out-of-context comment.

LIAR.

I have not made-- that I recall--
any reference to my military experience to support my overall position
on the model.

No, but you did attempt to use it to support your BS claim about handguns
and SWAT teams, which you were wrong about. You were also wrong about
tactical teams not carrying handguns.

For a team leader you seem pretty ignorant of the armaments used by such
teams.

You were the one that asserted you KNEW what you were talking about. It
was
found that you didn't know what you were talking about then, and it
appears
that you still don't know what you are talking about.


If you commented just on what
I said instead of inserting your own meaning, it might not be so hard
for you to understand.

Ok, and to prohibit machine guns is to prohibit the M16A2, which is a
machine gun both by common understanding and the law.

To call all automatic weapons a machine gun isn't really helpful--
again, even if the ATF does it.

And to refer to all automatic weapons when you really intend to refer to
just a segment of them isn't helpful either.

Don't blame me because of your inability to effectively communicate.

I'm open to suggestions consistent with the spirit of the model that
would make for an objective drawing of lines to eliminate the
"sporting
use" problem.

"shall not be infringed"

"Shall not be infringed" is not consistent with the model.

Which is my major problem with it.

that would certainly eliminate the "sporting use" problem as well as
the
suggested "self defense use" problem.




.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... weapons. ... So it is your contention that a machine gun can't be used for self ... full automatics is too prevalent to suggest they aren't regular. ... militaries have crafted weapons that do no more than burst fire ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... Specifically the allowance to prohibit any weapons ... So it is your contention that a machine gun can't be used for self ... full automatics is too prevalent to suggest they aren't regular. ... militaries have crafted weapons that do no more than burst fire ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... Specifically the allowance to prohibit any weapons ... nor is our right with firearms just about self defense. ... trained to use controlled bursts or even single fire to increase ... full automatics is too prevalent to suggest they aren't regular. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... Specifically the allowance to prohibit any weapons ... So it is your contention that a machine gun can't be used for self ... full automatics is too prevalent to suggest they aren't regular. ... and burst modes of automatic fire. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... Specifically the allowance to prohibit any weapons ... suitable for self defense which IMO would become the new "sporting ... prevent infantry from needlessly and wastefully spewing out ammunition. ... But the use of full automatics with infantry units is too prevalent to ...
    (talk.politics.guns)