Getting a handle on "Assault Weapons".

[SocialRealist]

Well, I've been waiting to touch on this topic until I could start my own post. Now that I've hit the magic number of posts, I can. :) I wish I could have got to it earlier, but the last couple of weeks have been pretty hectic.

So, here's my thoughts on how we can get a handle on so-called "assault weapons".

I had heard some of my gun owning friends and co-workers mention how the "assault weapons ban" was such a failure, and that it was really just a ban on cosmetic feature of the gun, and didn't reduce the effectiveness of the firearms at all. Well, I didn't really want to get into any sort of heated discussion about it, and I knew that I didn't have a sound technical argument to counter them, so I decided to research the issue on my own.

I started out by reading about assault weapons on the internet, and found my way to some gun discussion boards. I read a lot, and I registered on a few and posted some questions, pretending to be a new gun enthusiast who needed to learn about guns. While it was distasteful to enter into discussions with some people who are obviously obsessed with some of the most dangerous guns in existence, I felt it was necessary if I was to try to discover how we might bring some of these guns under stricter regulation.

One of the first things I learned is that many of these gun people are consumed with the technical aspects of their guns, and like to point out the technical inaccuracies of gun control proponents. This actually helps our cause by letting us know how to speak and prepare legislation in such a way as to take away their objection the technical inaccuracies.

For example, the term “assault weapon”. I don't even like to use this term anymore, as it is admittedly not technically descriptive, as well as a bit emotionally charged. Historically, the term “assault weapon” was used to refer to FULLY automatic weapons, rather than SEMIautomatic weapons. When I say that it is emotionally charged, I mean that in the mind of gun control proponents, it conjures up an image of an angry, wild-eyed loner, clothed in camouflage, brooding in his rural shack and waiting for some sort of apocalyptic event, perhaps of his own making. We must strive to be more technically accurate and rational in our approach to the gun issue.

Now, back to the issue of so-called “assault weapons”. What are we really talking about here? What makes them so much more dangerous than granddads old duck gun?

Put simply, it is their semiautomatic type of operation, and their ability to accept a detachable magazine.

There are several types of actions for firearms. There are bolt actions and pump actions, where the actions must be manually operated in order to place a round of ammunition into position for firing, at which point the ammunition may be fired. After firing, the action must be manually operated again to prepare another round of ammunition for firing. This is a somewhat slower process, not just because of the manual operation, but also because the manual operation disturbs the aim of the gun. Also, bolt action and pump action firearms typically have greater recoil, which also disturbs the aim of the shooter and makes successive shots slower.

Now, to the heart of the matter. One of the things that makes “assault weapons” more dangerous is their semiautomatic method of operation. While the first round of ammunition must be loaded manually, pulling the trigger causes the next round to be loaded without manual manipulation of the action, either by harnessing some of the recoil generated by the firing of the round, or by harnessing some of the gases created by the burning of the gunpowder. The lack of manual operation of the action makes each successive shot faster, as the aim is not disturbed. Much of the recoil is absorbed and dissipated by the semiautomatic operation, so the aim is not disturbed nearly as much as in a manually operated action.

So, the term that we need to focus on is not “assault weapon”, but “SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON”. Remember that term, and use it. It is technically descriptive, and will get us where we want and need to be with the regulation of these firearms, as I will demonstrate shortly.

Remember when I mentioned detachable magazines? This is one part of the “assault weapons ban” that was actually somewhat effective. When the magazines over 10 round capacity were banned, there was a “grandfather clause” that allowed magazines manufactured before the ban to be possessed and sold, but newly manufactured higher capacity magazines were no longer allowed to be sold to civilians. This resulted in an artificially limited supply of higher capacity magazines, which in turn resulted in much higher prices for these magazines. The higher prices and limited supply meant that gun owners possessed less magazines. This part of the assault weapons ban should be reenacted.

Earlier I said that the gun people claimed that the “assault weapons ban” was a failure. I have to agree. What was banned was cosmetic features, such as some types of butt stocks, bayonet lugs, and a few other features that had nothing to do with what really makes these weapons more dangerous – their semiautomatic operation. This is the issue that must be addressed in any future regulation.

One more thing I noticed about the gun people is that there is a great deal of division with their ranks. This can be used to our advantage.

One division is between people who own guns primarily for hunting, and people who are of a more survivalist type (there is some crossover between these groups). Many hunters, as can be shown both statistically and anecdotally, really don't care if most semiautomatic weapons are banned. They see them as serving no legitimate purpose, as they are not the traditional choice for hunting. Theses gun owners are vilified by the survivalist types, and are even referred to be the derisive term “Fudds”. While the survivalist types will resist any attempt to regulate the semiautomatic weapons that they claim they will need for the governmental collapse/Chinese invasion/zombie apocalypse, many hunters would support this regulation if there were some assurance that those semiautomatic weapons that are commonly used for hunting would not be affected. There would have to be some provision to exclude semiautomatic weapons which have low-capacity, nondetachable magazines.

Another useful division in the group is between those who support restricting gun ownership to law abiding citizens, and those who believe the government has no business regulating the sale of firearms or knowing who owns them. This can also be used to our advantage. Many gun owners support the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and I think they would also support making semiautomatic weapons more regulated. They will often express the attitude that if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't have a problem with a background check. I think they would be more willing to accept registration of semiautomatic weapons, rather than an outright ban. Faced with a choice between registration or an outright ban, I think that even those who think the government has no business doing either would accept registration.

Well, I really didn't realize I was going to expound so thoroughly on this issue, so I'll bring it to a close (although I could say a bit more on the issue).

In summary, we should focus on regulating all semiautomatic weapons, to include rifles, shotguns, and pistols. This regulation should take the form of registration and taxation, in the same manner as we already register and tax machineguns. By providing a method for allowing those guns that are suitable for sporting purposes to be excluded from this registration, we can gain the support of many gun owners whose primary focus is hunting. By enacting registration and taxation, rather than an outright ban, we can gain the support of gun owners who support restricting gun ownership to law-abiding citizens.

I have written a sample bill that I think would be good, effective law. I'll post that up in just a minute, and I would welcome suggestions for improving the wording of it. I think it would be a great way for President Obama to do something about semiautomatic weapons, and yet still maintain his position that he is not going to take away anyone's guns.

[SocialRealist]

1. Text of legislation.

A BILL

To provide for the registration of semiautomatic weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Semiautomatic Weapon Registration Act of 2009”.

SECTION 2. REGISTRATION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person possessing a semiautomatic weapon as defined in section 5845(n) of the Internal Revenue Code (as amended by this Act) which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record shall register each firearm so possessed with the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate in such form and manner as the Secretary or his delegate may require within the thirty days immediately following the enactment of this Act. Such registrations shall become a part of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record required to be maintained by section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code (as amended by this title).

(b) There shall be levied, collected, and paid on semiautomatic weapons registered within the thirty days following the enactment of this Act a tax at the rate of $5 for each firearm registered, after which no new registrations shall be allowed, and the transfer tax shall be at the rate prescribed under section 5811(a) of this title.

(c) The Secretary of the Treasury, after publication in the Federal Register of his intention to do so, is authorized to establish such period of amnesty, not to exceed ninety days in the case of any single period, and immunity from liability during any such period, as the Secretary determines will contribute to the purposes of this title.


SECTION 3. DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON.


(a) Section 5845 of Title 26, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

“(a) The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); (8) a destructive device; and (9) a semiautomatic weapon. The term ``firearm'' shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun, destructive device, or semiautomatic weapon) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.”

(b) Section 5845 of Title 26, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(n) The term “semiautomatic weapon” means any weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, or which may be readily converted to a condition, which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a semiautomatic weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic weapon can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. The term shall not include any weapon which fits the definition of “machinegun” as used in this chapter, nor shall the term include a weapon which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes.”

[gorfle]

2. Good luck with that.

Sounds like an excellent way to revert control of the congress back to the Republicans.

[bossy22]

9. it looks like an excellent way

to waste 5 million dollars on legal fees to find out that its unconstitutional and needs to be repealed

\

[jmg257]

18. Let me know when you get the 2nd amendment repealed, then we can talk about your "bill".

Have fun!

[d72r]

43. another idiot trying to take away one more right

clinton already tried that crap and the only thing that happened was the price of all the weapons on his list went sky high! Now bush let the bans run out and the market has been flooded with high capacity clips along with all sorts of "assault weapons" If you want to sit home and write imaginary bills, how about a bill that denies or great congress BRIBES.... Also known as campaign contributions. Focus your little brain on smaller tasks and then work your way up......

[paulsby]

52. guns? dangerous?

much of your point seems to be that we should ban the more dangerous guns (alleging the reasons why semiautos fit that bill).

that's a little silly considering that guns are SUPPOSED to be dangerous - a bullet entering your body is definitely dangerous.

iow, while a gun poses NO danger to anybody unless either MISUSED (recklessly or carelessly) or in some cases properly used (posing a danger to the person being shot, whether or not the shooting is justified), arguing that we should ban certain guns because they essentially do their job well is like saying we should ban editorials that are persuasive.

[Lasher]

3. So you pretended to be a gun enthusiast.

What are you pretending to be now?

Get back to me on this after you've managed to get the Second Amendment repealed.

[rrneck]

4. When you were

pretending to be a gun enthusiast, did you think to ask what an assault rifle actually was? You might look back a few threads in this forum for a more accurate definition.

BTW, welcome aboard from someone who has already gotten quite an education.

damn typos

[Howzit]

5. The most dangerous type of firearm is the

one aimed at you by a person motivated to delete you. This can be a single shot hunting rifle, a shotgun or a revolver.

It only takes one shot to ruin your day, so the fact that someone may have more than 10 rounds on tap that they can fire without manual intervention makes little difference. A person does not become a raging maniac just because they have a semi-auto in their hands - they are either sociopaths or they are not. They are either motivated to kill someone for no good reason or they are not - considering how popular semi-autos are among average people, YOU would think there would a lot more shootings.

The point is that we don't want nuts and crooks to own any kind of gun, and that restricting semi-autos won't make the slightest difference to "gun violence". The only effect such legislation will have is on people's voting habits.

[Howzit]

6. The most dangerous type of firearm is the

one aimed at you by a person motivated to delete you. This can be a single shot hunting rifle, a shotgun or a revolver.

It only takes one shot to ruin your day, so the fact that someone may have more than 10 rounds on tap that they can fire without manual intervention makes little difference. A person does not become a raging maniac just because they have a semi-auto in their hands - they are either sociopaths or they are not. They are either motivated to kill someone for no good reason or they are not - considering how popular semi-autos are among average people, YOU would think there would a lot more shootings.

The point is that we don't want nuts and crooks to own any kind of gun, and that restricting semi-autos won't make the slightest difference to "gun violence". The only effect such legislation will have is on people's voting habits.

[bossy22]

7. in summary

i'm guessing you have been living under a rock since early in 2008, or must of missed the date of june 26 2008. the date when the SCOTUS decided that the second amendment protected and individual right to own and use a handgun for self defense and all other lawful purposes.

"In summary, we should focus on regulating all semiautomatic weapons, to include rifles, shotguns, and pistols. This regulation should take the form of registration and taxation, in the same manner as we already register and tax machineguns. By providing a method for allowing those guns that are suitable for sporting purposes"

a couple of things...the first part...machine guns are taxed to and controlled to the point of prohibition...now i doubt any law that restricts handgun ownership to the point where its almost a ban will be struck down by the supreme court...remember... YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO OWN A HANDGUN NOT A MACHINE GUN....

second part (which happens to be my favorite) the "sporting purpose". Now the supreme court has determined that you have a RIGHT TO OWN A HANDGUN FOR SELF DEFENSE. that means that a handguns legality is not based upon whether it has a sporting purpose. a non-sporting gun surely can have a self defense purpose and its hard to defend a prohibition on a gun designed for self defense based on the fact that its not sporting when the supreme court has determined that the core purpose of the second amendment is arms for self defense.

Though i appreciate you explaining your views and making a coherent argument you fail to realize the implications of D.C. V Heller. at the very core of it, you have a right to a handgun for self defense...your proposals turn that right into a government granted privilege that can only be used for sport. This is at odds with the supreme law of the land which states that ownership and use of arms for self defense is constitutionally protected

[Taitertots]

8. Just going to

have the next election go back to the republicans. There are a lot of people who own those firearms and you want to create a huge hassle for them. Why push huge portions of the nation away from the democratic party at a period of enormous national tension?

[Statistical]

10. Well you are honest I will give you that.

1) You are honest. It is your goal to ban semi-auto weapons, ALL semi-auto weapons. Brady and other gun grabbers have the same goal too. The AWB was intended to be a first step to get Americans use to the idea of banning an entire class of weapon. So you are way ahead of must gun grabbers in your honesty.

2) The term "assault weapon" NEVER was used to refer to mschineguns. NEVER. Not once historically. "Assault Weapons" is a made up term invented circa 1994 to confuse the public. "Assault RIFLES" refer to the class of medium caliber fully automatic (or 3 round burst) rifles that replaced the WWII and Korean War era BATTLE RIFLES.

3) Heller vs DC. Pure and simple the rules are different now. Heller basically says individuals have a right to own a class of weapons that meet two criteria
a) in common usage
b) has lawful purpose.

semi-autos are arguably the LARGEST class of weapons. One subset of that semi-auto pistols make up 80%+ of handgun market. Very unlikely that any restriction system that puts semi-autos in the same category as tank weapons, grenade launchers, and heavy machineguns will pass Constitutional muster.

4) Backlash. The AWB bill cost the Dems control of Congress for a decade. Was it worth it? Most people were unaware of the AWB until it passed. The AWB affected a small minority of people but made that class of weapons EXTREMELY popular. So called "assault weapons" are now the fastest selling class of rifles. In 1994 it was estimated that less than 500K we legally owned. Today it is closer to 20-30 million with 3+ million sold each year.

There will be no ananimity this time around. NRA and then media fueled by blogs, forums, and pro-gun websites will run with the story from the day it enters committee.

You aren't trying to ban/restrict a tiny minority of gun owners. The vast majority of gunowners (likely 90%+) own at least a semi-auto pistol if not a semi-auto carbine, or semi-auto shotgun also.


So if it is your goal to turn over control of the Congress and weaken the Obama presidency then I think it is a great idea.

[FLAprogressive]

11. Bingo. No Dems should want any AWB ban unless they're sadistic and want a 1994 repeat.

[russ1943]

39. Again, I'd like to point out an error.

Post # 10........... (and a few hundred others)
"Assault Weapons" is a made up term invented circa 1994 to confuse the public”.

The term assault weapon wasn’t a made up term invented circa 1994 to confuse the public.

An "expert" whose opinion actually carries some weight on this matter, certainly isn't a bunch of gun zealots posting on this or other gun boards but;
Joseph P. Tartaro
the Executive Editor of Gun Week Magazine and president of The Second Amendment Foundation, (a pioneer in defense of the right to keep and bear arms). A prominent leader of the right to bear arms movement, has acknowledged that the idea of calling semi-automatic versions of military small arms "'assault weapons" did not,
I repeat,
NOT
originate with either anti-gun activists, media or politicians. It was a marketing strategy by importers, manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate and market sales of selected "exotica"--firearms which did not have a traditional appearance. The fact that even some of the semi-automatic versions of the military-style firearms retained their bayonet lugs, extended pistol grips, "banana-clip" magazines, folding stocks and even threading for silencers and muzzle brakes has been used to erroneously define "assault weapons." But these design features were part of the Walter Mittyesque "romance" of what some like to call "ugly guns."
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm

[jody]

12. ROFLMAO. Your well stated position based on your personal opinion are worthy of the top Beetle Award

You've earned the following for extraordinary gun-ban efforts.

[rrneck]

15. Best dung beetle image yet. nt

[appal_jack]

27. OT question

Jody,

I truly appreciate you pointing out hypocrisies and flawed/unconstitutional arguments of the gun grabbers. But your conflation of them with Dung Beetles is an insult to the beetles. These little critters are crucial to range and pasture health. Indeed, their very mission in life is to bury the bullshit.

So what have you got against these little critters?

-app

[jody]

28. I'm aware of the role those beetles play in nature but the analogy is appropriate for humans who

advance arguments based primarily on unsupported assertions, distorted half-truths, and sometimes worse, i.e. BS.

[appal_jack]

30. OK

OK, I guess if I think of the (human) dung beetles as more spreading the bullshit around, then I can run with the analogy. Gotta give the (real) dung beetles their props though.

-app

[jody]

31. I recall from my animal husbandry courses some countries have introduced (real) dung beetles. n/t

[iverglas]

49. "His educational career began interestingly enough in agricultural school, ...

... where he majored in animal husbandry, until they caught him at it one day."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYiN5KRpPu4

Dang, it's in the spoken intro, doesn't seem to be included there.

Now, I'm sure you're all aware that this week is national gall-bladder week. So as sort of an educational feature at this point I thought I would acquaint you with some of the results of my recent researches into the career of the late doctor Samuel Gall, inventor of the gall-bladder. Which certainly ranks as one of the more important technological advances since the invention of the joy-buzzer and the dribble-glass. Doctor Gall's faith in his invention was so dramatically vindicated last year, as you no doubt recall, when, for the first time in history, in a nation-wide poll the gall-bladder was voted among the top ten organs. His educational career began interestingly enough in agricultural school, where he majored in animal husbandry, until they caught him at it one day.

Whereupon he switched to the field of medicine in which field he also won renown as the inventor of gargling. Which prior to that time had been practiced only furtively by a remote tribe in the Andes who passed the secret down from father to son as part of their oral tradition. He soon became a specialist, specializing in diseases of the rich. He was therefore able to retire at an early age. To the land we all dream about, sunny Mexico of course. The last part of which is completely irrelevant, as with the whole thing I guess, except, it's a rather sneaky way of getting into this next type of popular song which is one of those things about that magic, and romantic land south of the border.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

57. ah, cultural deprivation

Tom Lehrer isn't Canadian, you know.

[iverglas]

40. "Indeed, their very mission in life is to bury the bullshit. "

EXACTLY!

And there's a never-ending supply of it in any thread where Jody drops ... er ... by.

[jeepnstein]

13. Unbelievable...

You propose legislation to strip citizens of their Constitutional Rights without even defining a problem? It's enough, in your view, to do it because you find their values "distasteful".

People like you are just itching to turn a large voting bloc in the Democrat Party into "Republicans" with your moral crusades. This country has serious problems but the kind of rifle that some Tin Foil Society member keeps under his bed isn't one of them.

Are there any other Constitutional Rights you'd like to trample on your way to achieving your vision of a "Better" society?

[slackmaster]

14. Sounds like a solution in search of a problem

You haven't presented any actual evidence that semiautomatic firearms pose a special threat to public safety.

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Hoopla Phil]

16. Sounds like a solution that will CAUSE problems.

[jmg257]

17. Who "we" Kemo sabe?...

SO basically you did a lot of research in an attempt to justify violating the Constitution of the United States. M'k.

So besides being a rat, what is it about infringing on the rights of near 300 million Americans that stimulates you? Did you vote for Bush or something? Abused as a kid?

The reason for your unconstitutional witch hunt is?


BTW, look up Jim Zumbo, and you can see how well your "plan" of splitting hunters and shooter will work these days. Then look up "High Power rifle competition" to see the idiocy of trying to equate "sporting" only with "hunting".


Oh, and in case you some how have missed the anti-gun nut propaganda, bullshit, and lies, your goofy "ideas" are nothing new. psst...look up "Brady Campaign" or "VPC" (even they want to avoid having "assault weapon" verbage include "legitimate semi-autos" - impossible of course) next time - save yourself some time. Or better yet - READ THE CONSTITUTION, and save all of us the time spent in reading such crap.


Back to the drawing board, Tiger.

[appal_jack]

29. word

As soon as I read the OP, I decided that my reply would be "Who's this 'we' Kemo sabe?". But after reading the whole thread, I'm glad to echo yours.

Many peaceable citizens own semi-automatic guns and support the Second Amendment; many of them are also Democrats (myself included).

I posit that finding a pluralistic "we" to support the legislation proposed by the OP will not be possible within either the Democratic Party or the citizenry as a whole. And I like it that way, because our Bill of Rights is a GOOD THING which needs to be reinvigorated rather than further eroded.

-app

[jmg257]

19. Oh, and at your request...I LOVE SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS..

"SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON”. Remember that term, and use it.

How is this?...

My favorite guns are SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. The most popular rifle in the US is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPON. Most cops, including me, carry a SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPON. As a civilian, when I choose a firearm for defense, it is almost always a SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON. The most popular civilian choice for self-defense is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPON. Many (most?) sport shooting events use SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. When I duck hunted, I used a SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON. When I went trap shooting, I used a SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON. When teaching my kids how to shoot, we used SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS. The US government has contracted for MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of regular-capacity magazines that are available and fit just fine in the most popular SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS. The several intents of the 2nd amendment guarantee the people the right to keep and bear SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

I own quite a few SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, and YOU can come and get them when you think you want them bad enough.


Good luck with that.

[spin]

20. Questions...

1 How do you feel about revolvers?

2) Do you know fast fast an expert can fire a revolver? Or how fast an expert can reload a revolver?

If not watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_Y

[marksmithfield]

22. HOLY CRAP !!!

An anti gun nightmare right there folks!!!

[spin]

24. Another great video with Jerry shooting a .45 auto...

and also blindfolded whileshooting his revolver and reloading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OPHq7NR8w4


You can find out more about this shooter at...

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

[krispos42]

21. Solution in searcho of a problem

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

25. Some thoughts -

Y'know, I re-read your OP and I must say that it is embarrassingly condescending and obtuse. There is no evidence of anything that could be confused with research anywhere in your post. I don't want to hurt your feelings here, but your attitude exemplifies exactly the lack of sensitivity and an arrogance toward others that has gotten liberals plastered with labels like "elitist", "out of touch", and "pointy headed". It is the kind of attitude that has given intellectualism in this country a bad name and, as has already been pointed out, cost Democrats dearly in the polls in the last several election cycles.

You seem well intentioned and you put some effort in your posts, so I will return the favor by replying at some length. I am a gun owner and a native of the southern United States. I was raised around firearms and got my first one when I was six years old after interminable lectures about gun safety and anecdotes about gun accidents. I am by no means an expert marksman or an authority on firearms. I do not consider myself a firearms enthusianst, although I do enjoy the odd trip to the range when I can. Even so, I can put seven rounds of .45ACP in your chest in under three seconds and I can run six rounds through a pump shotgun in about that same amount of time. I also hold a terminal degree, and issues concerning justice, the value of human life, cultural development and the lessons of history figure large in my role as a person and as a citizen. And I am not alone. Apart from details of personal experience you will find that the vast majority of gun owners are pretty much like me. So in the future, it might be in your best interest to kindly refrain from saying things like, "One more thing I noticed about the gun people is that there is a great deal of division with their ranks. This can be used to our advantage." It would also help if you would take the time to read as many of the previous threads in this forum as you can. You will discover that this is not some secret gun banning club unknown by anyone that owns a firearm. Far from it.

If you asked most people what a "tranche" is you will probably get a blank stare. The same with "CDO", "short selling", "compressor stall", "spot market", and "Transform Boundaries". On the other hand, everyone understands the terms "home invasion", "car jacking", "rape", "assault", and "self defense". Some of the former may have a much greater chance of an impact on your life than the latter, but the latter figure much larger in people's minds. That's because the latter are personal. We trust our lives to others every day to protect us from seemingly remote dangers, but when it comes to the personal defense of ourselves or our loved ones, a firearm represents much more than a difficult to regulate piece of technology. It represents symbolic control. Sometimes that control is a great deal more than symbolic. People defend themselves with firearms with fair regularity. Furthermore, that meaning is not confined to "law abiding citizens". The bad guys feel the same way about them.

And that's the problem. Small arms are dual use technology. That makes them very hard to regulate. They have shown proven utility in assault and defense against assault. It is impossible to remove firearms from one side of the equation without affecting the other side. In any event, if a firearm gets used in either an assault or defense of same, it is almost certain that there will be no representive from any civil authority there to intervene. If you get attacked for whatever reason, by whoever, using whatever weapon, you're on your own for what will seem like, and may well be, a lifetime. Some call that "the real world".

I confess I do not have a solution to the problem. Therefore, I approach issue of firearms with the same attitude that I approach most of the other issues regarding personal conduct and lifestyle choices. It's none of my business who you marry, whether or not you take a pregnancy to term, what church (if any) you attend, where you live, what you read, write, say, draw, dance, sing, or mime as long as you don't hurt anybody (which might take mime right off the table). Therefore, as a citizen, it's none of my government's business either, although there will always be grey areas that are points of contention and debate. That's how cultures develop. If someone shows that s/he is a danger to society, that individual doesn't need a firearm. They also deserve our help to not be a danger any more. Disarming people is a lot easier than making better people. But the latter is the better choice for us as a culture.

I suggest you do some actual research on the issue. You will find that firearms are unique in that when they are not needed, they seem completely useless, but but when you need one, nothing else will do. Their symbolic power is commensurate with their actual power for a reason. Firearms intersect our lives on every level of personal, political, cultural, and moral level, and there are no simple answers. Please don't approach the problem lightly. I can assure you that most people don't.

damn typos

[spin]

26. Great reply. (n/t)

[marksmithfield]

53. That is a wonderful post

but I do take exception to the pointy head remark. I remember a movie based on Harry Nillsons song "Me And My Arrow" whereas the character Oblio had a pointy head. In my opinion he was definitely liberal. So I view the term pointy headed liberal to be a compliment!

Really though GREAT post!

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. Oh, please, do go on some more about 'these gun people' !

And how 'we' can divide them to 'our advantage'?

Sweet Jesus on a Harley, have you even bothered to research here at this little corner
of DU?

I'll try to follow the rules here and say only:

Your OP is a brilliant piece of writing. Absolutely brilliant!

[pipoman]

33. As Usual With These Types Of

Proclaimed "Researched Topics", Not One Bit Of Research Was Conducted Right Here..And Also As Usual The Noob OP's Response???



Com'mon back SocialRealist and Defend Your Positions...

[benEzra]

34. You realize you are talking about THE MOST POPULAR FIREARMS IN AMERICA, yes?

Most firearms sold annually in the United States are self-loading, aka "semiautomatic".

Half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies, dude. 80% are nonhunters. And the most popular nonhunting guns are semiautomatic pistols and small- to intermediate-caliber rifles. We'll keep them, thanks.

One division is between people who own guns primarily for hunting, and people who are of a more survivalist type (there is some crossover between these groups). Many hunters, as can be shown both statistically and anecdotally, really don't care if most semiautomatic weapons are banned. They see them as serving no legitimate purpose, as they are not the traditional choice for hunting. Theses gun owners are vilified by the survivalist types, and are even referred to be the derisive term “Fudds”. While the survivalist types will resist any attempt to regulate the semiautomatic weapons that they claim they will need for the governmental collapse/Chinese invasion/zombie apocalypse, many hunters would support this regulation if there were some assurance that those semiautomatic weapons that are commonly used for hunting would not be affected. There would have to be some provision to exclude semiautomatic weapons which have low-capacity, nondetachable magazines.

Problem is, only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners is a hunter, and most hunters also own nonhunting guns that you want to ban/restrict.

FWIW, I think you should have looked into the issue a bit deeper, and quantified just how much of a problem rifles with modern styling actually are before advocating draconian new restrictions. Only 3% of U.S. murders, and a far smaller percentage of nonfatal assaults, involve any type of rifle, period. Rifles just aren't concealable or portable enough for most criminal purposes.

[old mark]

35. SocialRealist : You should have spent moreitme reading this forum

before posting an anti-gun "bill".
MILLIONS of Democrats own firearms and many of those millions use the weapons you seem to despise so much.

Maybe some of our members who live near you will take you shooting some time and change your mind.

Welcome.

mark :hi:

[Xela]

36. I don't buy this...

I think you're still missing the point. I'm personally for less regulation (even some de-regulation of heavily restricted items, like silencers to protect our hearing).

We should instead implement a national firearm safety education program.

Target practice should be encouraged and public shooting ranges should be funded.

Firearms are not the problem, an uneducated populace is.

Xela

[a777pilot]

37. Assault Weapons?

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Patric Henry.

"I came into this world screaming and covered in someone else's blood. I have no problem going out the same way." Me.

I have known Marines that have killed multiple enemy with just a K-bar knife. Should we ban them too? What about drugs? They kill more than most? Maybe cars?

I propose an experiment: Get a gun and some ammo for it. Then put it in a room full of people (without their knowledge) and then see how long it takes for that gun to kill someone.

If guns kill people then forks make people fat. For the sake of our soon to be socialized medical industry, we need to ban spoons and forks. Do it for the children.



Plunder at home and Blunder abroad.

[iverglas]

41. Welcome, welcome

Before you wander too far around DU, you may want to learn the function of that "Reply" link.

Generally, it is for posting a message that relates in some way, even tangentially, to the post in which it appears.

Hope that helps.

Meanwhile, I found that sig line interesting: "Plunder at home and Blunder abroad." I googled it.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Plunder+at+home+and+Blunder+abroad.%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Interestingly, it appears in a few forum posts where your line -- cited to yourself --

"I came into this world screaming and covered in someone else's blood. I have no problem going out the same way."

also appears ... with the further comment: Obama Lies and Freedom Dies.

Some have your name, a777pilot, attached; others have the name rock.hard and the same avatar as is used by that a777pilot.

Wouldn't be you, perchance?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. I'm sure at least one of them is.

I'm guessing he'll be back.

David

[iverglas]

51. I'm sure both of them are

And I'll be looking forward to the return to DU of someone who posts OBAMA LIES FREEDOM DIES around the internet.

[iverglas]

63. oh dear, one of us guessed wrong!

A moment of silence, please.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Who guessed wrong?

He didn't have to be either guy to get tombstoned.

David

[iverglas]

71. oh, Davey

Post 51.

You: I'm guessing he'll be back.

Just a simple little reference to a very simple thing said a very short time before.

Maybe you could rent Slumdog's predecessor (no more imperialist than Slumdog itself) and get some tips.

http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=12065

Kim, a young Irish boy living in Lahore, India, decides to accompany a Tibetan lama on his search for the River that washes all sin. Kim’s canny street smarts and gift for disguise protect the gentle lama along the Grand Trunk Road, bustling with the peoples of various races, castes, and creeds who make up India’s complex culture and history. Kim’s abilities also inspire Mahbub Ali, an Afghani horse-dealer, to ask him to deliver a coded message to the spymaster Colonel Creighton, who taps Kim to help the British in their Great Game against the Russians for control of the northwest territory of India.

When Kim is discovered by an Irish regiment and nearly sent to an orphanage for soldiers’ children, the lama and Creighton intervene to send him to St. Xavier’s school instead, for training in mathematics, map-making, and other skills of the Great Game along with a classical education. Kim visits Lurgan Sahib for memory training and assessment of his potential, and journeys with the Bengali Hurree Babu to steal survey information from two Russian spies in the Hills bordering Tibet.

When Kim succumbs to exhaustion, uncertain whether to follow the lama’s vision of paradise or to join the Great Game for good, an elderly Sahiba nurses him back to health with traditional remedies. The lama, having discovered the River, invites Kim to bathe in it as well, to attain freedom from all worldly cares, although Mahbub waits for Kim to accompany him on another expedition for the State. The novel ends without Kim’s reply.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. I saw that he had been tombstoned, then I edited and added I'm guessing he'll be back.

Does that clear it up for you?

David

[iverglas]

75. ah yes, all cleared up

The tombstone wasn't there when I first posted, and was by the time you did, but I didn't see it until later.

Quick work all round.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. Probably one of your fastest to date.

[a777pilot]

38. Simple Solution.....

My solution is very much like me, a very simple old used up retired Marine.....

If you don't like guns, then don't own any.

Then put on your home and your car a sign that tells the world that you are an anti-gun American and that your home and car are gun free. Please, do set the example.

Let us know how it works out for you.

[aikoaiko]

42. No thank you. I'm not buying what you're selling.

[Furyataurus]

44. Wasn't there a community once.......

that did just that? They put up signs saying they were "anti-gun" and defenseless and after a few weeks or months the signs came down because of all the burglaries that happened there?

"In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, author W. Eugene Hollon, provides us with these astonishing facts:

In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870."

http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d17-Dispelling-the-myth-of-The-Wild-West


Anyways, banning firearms only hurts citizens and not criminals. Imposing harsher punishments on criminals will reduce much of the "gun violence". Getting more people armed will reduce it even further.

[iverglas]

45. was there?

Where was it? Never-never land?

In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870."

Neat trick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene,_Texas

www.abilenetx.com/Parks/doc/chapter%202.pdf

The land that Abilene rests on was once occupied by nomadic Indians. By 1870, ranchers had taken over the land and drove the Indians out so that they could graze their cattle there. By 1880, the Texas and Pacific Railway was moving westward and bisected the cattlemen’s land. The railways established a new town and the name Abilene was suggested after the Kansas cattle town. The railways promoted Abilene as the “Future Great City of West Texas” and people arrived when town lots began to be sold. The lots were auctioned on March 15, 1881 and the town was officially established in just two days with churches, schools, and businesses quickly constructed.

The population of Abilene finally topped 100,000 in the 1980s. Wonder what it was in 1879 ... before it existed ...

Ah, the tales they do tell.

Or hm, maybe you (or your source) did mean Abilene, Kansas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene,_Kansas

Abilene is a city in Dickinson County, Kansas, United States, 163 miles (262 km) west of Kansas City. In 1900, 3,507 people lived here.

I wonder how many dozen lived there in 1870.

[Furyataurus]

46. Iverglas

blah, blah, blah, blah.



What's wrong in admitting that the so called "wild wild west" wasn't wild at all??? Back then carrying a gun was seen as a "civilized" act which is true even today.

[iverglas]

47. "back then"

really just isn't very relevant to "here and now", is it?

Back then carrying a gun was seen as a "civilized" act which is true even today.

Ah yes. "Civilized" being in the eye of the beholder, of course.

"Barbaric" and "uncouth" and "utterly bizarre" start to describe how everybody I know see it.


What's wrong in admitting that the so called "wild wild west" wasn't wild at all???

I wonder how many First Nations people would agree with that assessment, and how many "Indians" would have lived to have descendants living today had the cowboys not had those guns.

What's wrong with being an ethnocentric forgetter of genocide?


Blah blah blah back at ya, chum. Where shall I send the autographed pic?

[iverglas]

48. so?

Where was this community whose tale you tell?

[one-eyed fat man]

55. Abilene, Kansas

It was one of the Kansas "cow-towns" because of the railhead. Herds were delivered there to go to markets in the east. Bill Hickok was one of the more notable town marshals. (Yes, there really was a Chisholm Trail, an Abilene Trail, among others and cowboys drove herds hundreds of miles to market.)

Their glory days as centers of commerce went with the tracks. Just like Sentinel Butte, or Medora, North Dakota or number of places that shrank to nothing or became ghost towns when transportation centers or methods changed.

[marksmithfield]

56. History means nothing to iverglas

she is to wrapped up in the anti-gun crap to even consider your point valid. If the statistics and truth don't point her way she ignores them.

[iverglas]

58. yes ... and ...

The relevance of a 19th century cow town to anything at all today is ... ?

There's somebody here will be wanting to give you a lecture on muptiple variables and regression, I think.

[marksmithfield]

66. iverglas do you ever feel as though

you are wasting millions of pixels on an argument you will never win? I seriously doubt that you will ever change the minds of any of the serious pro RKBA fans here. I have enjoyed reading your arguments her for a long time, but they are just as old, stale and absurd to us as our arguments are to you. Is it the enjoyment of the argument itself? If so you might find it more pleasurable if you lighten up a little.
Peace and prosperity to you in these rough times
Mark

[iverglas]

67. win an argument??

You imagine I'm aiming to win some argument??


Hahahahaha.

The name of the game is exposing ... er, it ... for what it is.


Who are the ones wasting time now???

[marksmithfield]

74. And what exactly is "it"

that you are exposing? Some conspiracy on our part to exercise and enjoy our rights set forth in the constitution?

[paulsby]

77. i think it gives too much credit

there are plenty of anti-gunners who at least can give fact based intelligent arguments.

and there are plenty of pro gunners who can (and can't).

i've read iverglas' posts for some time before posting here, and i don't see his arguments as serious. He appears more interested in word games, "gotcha tactics" and obfuscation than an actual give and take discussion.

fwiw, i used to be anti-choice. both in regards to guns and abortion rights.

it was INTELLIGENT, thoughtful, and honest discussions with pro-choicers in the guns and abortion arena that helped me to change my mind.

I will never get to the point where I am SURE about any position I hold. Part of the joy of discussion is that you can learn something, and correct bad ideas with good ideas.

I believe I did so with both guns and reproductive rights, but I am always willing to listen to people who disagree with me.

And concede that I COULD be wrong. If you can't enter a discussion with the belief that you MIGHT be wrong, imo you have already lost. Because your mind is closed.

[iverglas]

79. and there's always a fresh supply

of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Didn't we know?? The Guns forum sprang into existence at the exact same instant you registered! Or maybe: I'm here for your entertainment exclusively.

You think you COULD be wrong about women's reproductive rights?

What an overgrown field of weeds you must harbour in your head.

[paulsby]

81. yes

i concede i COULD be wrong about anything.

that's the sign of an open mind, and a hallmark of liberalism.

plenty of people have changed their minds. jesse jackson used to be anti-choice, for instance

he once opposed the hyde amendment. here's a quiote.

"There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of higher order than the right to life... that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned. What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have twenty years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth."

he changed his mind. bully for him.

people who walk around CONVINCED they are right about their beliefs, are close minded. period.

what is the point of having a discussion if you are not open to new ideas, the ultimate of which is - you might be wrong?

to quote bertrand russell

"Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day"

you and i are no different. i, though, by consciously accepting that i AM prone to this (just like you, and every person on earth), remain true to liberal, open, intelligfent discussion by holding out the possibility that i could be wrong on ANY of my policy stances.

i fight for what i believe in. but those who blindly stick to their beliefs, contrary to evidence, are close minded bigots.

i will also fight agaisnt that. and keep my mind open to new ideas.

i take comfort that greater men than i have been wrong about beliefs, and have been open to change their mind.

[iverglas]

82. Dennis Kucinich changed his, too

He actually did a good job of it.

They were wrong. They changed their minds.

people who walk around CONVINCED they are right about their beliefs, are close minded. period.

People who walk around thinking it might be right to violate other people's rights in egregious and horrific ways without a shred of justification are morons.

The "hallmark of liberalism" is NOT being open to the idea that oppression and violation of rights is right.

I actually couldn't care less what you might want to babble about hallmarks of liberalism. I'm not a liberal. See how much you know?

what is the point of having a discussion if you are not open to new ideas, the ultimate of which is - you might be wrong?

What exactly might be the proof that someone's position on a public policy matter, where different opinions arise from differing assessments of justifications for restrictions on rights, is "wrong"?

Something found in a crystal ball, maybe?

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. Hey, you don't understand iverglas' worldview.

iverglas' pole star, her Alpha and Omega, here in the DU gun forum is (and always will be):

"Unlicensed guns in the hands of the American public are a disaster waiting to happen. They inevitably
lead to accidental shootings, casual murder, suppression of women, and voting Republican.
Use of them for self-defense is never, ever warranted."

In other words: "Turtles all the way down!"

As long as you remember than this is her idee fixee, you can understand and respond
to her posts.

[iverglas]

85. hey, friendly_iconoclast does not understand the process of civil discourse

or making sense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. Civil? Perhaps not. An accurate representation of your mindset.

Yes

[iverglas]

90. I see

you not only don't engage in civil discourse, you also don't know what the term means.

A falsehood is not an accurate representation of anything, and misrepresentation is not civil discourse.

[one-eyed fat man]

69. oh, maybe I misread?

"The population of Abilene finally topped 100,000 in the 1980s. Wonder what it was in 1879 ... before it existed ...

Ah, the tales they do tell.

Or hm, maybe you (or your source) did mean Abilene, Kansas.


Abilene is a city in Dickinson County, Kansas, United States, 163 miles (262 km) west of Kansas City. In 1900, 3,507 people lived here.


I wonder how many dozen lived there in 1870."

Maybe you forgot writing this? Short-term memory loss?

All I did was point out that after the railroad went past Abilene it's importance to the cattle trade and it's population waned. During their heyday, from 1870 to 1885, Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, were the most important shipping points in Kansas. Ranchers from Texas, New Mexico and the Indian Territories brought herds to ship to the big packing plants in Chicago and points East.

In 1885, the Kansas State Legislature banned all Texas cattle from the entire state of Kansas. What brought an end to the Kansas cow-town was not shoot-outs on Front Street, but the Texas tick fever that devastated Kansas dairy cattle and stock cattle. Texas Longhorns were wild animals, and were immune to earthly diseases.

[iverglas]

72. I wouldn't know

And I don't know what you're talking about now.

I replied to this statement, a quotation from a right-wing gun militant publication:

In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

My own comment continues to be: big whup.

Is someone else here suggesting that conditions in a mid-late 19th century cow town in the midwest USA is relevant to something? anything?



typo fixed

[one-eyed fat man]

76. How many times............

have the 'enlightened urban elites', HCI, Paul Helmke, Sarah Brady, Dianne Feinstein and their shills in the media been proclaimed that the passage of Concealed Carry in whatever city, state, National Park will result in shootouts worse than the Wild West, replete with lurid references to Dodge City and Tombstone in their hyperbole?

As a previous poster pointed out:

* In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
* In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:

* DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
* New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
* Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
* Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

It doesn't take an advanced degree in statistics to see that a return to “wild west” levels of violent crime would be a huge improvement for the residents of these cities.

The truth of the matter is that the “wild west” wasn’t nearly as wild as a Saturday night in Newark.

Even as late as 1929, the gunning down of 7 gangsters by a couple of fake Chicago cops with real machinguns, (not semi-auto clones) was horrendous enough to be called the "Valentine's Day Massacre." If anything has changed, it's the willingness of thugs to commit their thuggery unimpeded by their conscience, the minions of the law or the citizenry at large.

[iverglas]

78. oh goodness gracious me

Those damned urban élites and their use of a national mythology / metaphor.

Whatever. Is there some reason that homicide rates are to be taken as the best / only measure of lawfulness? None that I can see.

Ask some of the few remaining descendants of the First Nations how civilized and peaceable those cow town places were. Just shortly before the cows got there.

Too bad we can't ask some of the women who lived there how civilized and peaceable their menfolk were when they were at home ... or coming to call ...

[raimius]

59. At least you are straightforward.

I do appreciate that you made a fairly clear argument, even if I think it is foolish and destined to fail.

Your plan faces a few problems. First, it is unconstitutional. DC v Heller stated firearms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Also, it stated that practical bans on entire classes of those firearms are unconstitutional. Semi-automatic firearms are the most common firearms in the US. Second, firearms owners aren't divisible into two neat little classes (Hunters and Survivalists). There are upward of 60 million US gun owners. You cannot seriously expect to label them into just two groups and be accurate. Third, you expect to pass legislation that would make the most common firearms in America more restricted than 105mm howitzers...

(more to follow)

[Furyataurus]

60. That's too bad

she could probably be a good shooter with the right training...........

[iverglas]

61. how's the weather

on your planet?

[iverglas]

62. and would your planet include this discussion board --

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:AFS8GWvql-QJ:forums.mysanantonio.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/activeposts/2/2+site:forums.mysanantonio.com+%22furyataurus%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca

-- ?

Re: It's Official, TORTURE! by Furyataurus @ Yesterday at 08:41 PM

I don't understand why people are against "torture". If it wasn't for torture who knows how many more times terrorists would have attacked the U.S. by now or how many of our or anyone else's troops it saved.

[Furyataurus]

64. So?

Stay on topic. Or is that too difficult for you?

The 8th Amendment protects against cruel and unusual PUNISHMENT! Punishment is decided AFTER a trial! Torture/information extraction is done BEFORE a trial, duh. Torture is NOT punishment.

[iverglas]

65. whoa, horsies!

Who gives a folded fig what your 8th amendment says???

Heck, I was merely asking whether that was you there.

Guess I got my answer.

[marksmithfield]

68. But how about a folded fig for the 2nd?

Alas I am mortified some have admitted to torture...

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. "Torture is NOT punishment"? Are you for fucking real?

So if, say, the cops wanted your confession and wired up your genitalia for the "Bell Telephone Hour",
you'd be down with that. Right? After all, you are a dangerous criminal and a threat to society.

You claim to be innocent. But that just proves you're a clever liar, no?

Got any other little gems you'd care to share with us?

[iverglas]

86. Torture is NOT punishment. Are you not grasping simple concepts?

A prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment indeed does not prohibit anything done otherwise than as a sentence for a crime -- i.e. punishment. It's kinda definitional.

International conventions (and the Canadian constitution, e.g.: Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment) prohibit cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. (They also guarantee the right to security of the person as well as to life and liberty.) That would be why.

The fact that torture as an instrument of interrogation rather than a sentence is not contrary to a specific provision of the US constitution doesn't mean that it is not contrary to some other provision, of course. Or just plain bad.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Torture is quite often used as punishment- even here in the USA

I would hope that the TO cops are more civilized, but the Chicago Police Department (amongst others)
used it regularly to punish those guilty of the crime of 'having been arrested by the Chicago PD'.
Also used by the U.S. Army at Abu Ghraib prison and by the CIA in Afghanistan.

If they really disliked you (or wanted to get a confession out of you), they would employ it in the more traditional sense.

Either way, it's an American tradition- search the name "Giles Corey"

[iverglas]

89. and Chicago cops

have the legal/constitutional authority to punish people, do they?

Didn't think so.

Any torture employed otherwise than as a sentence is treatment, not punishment.

It really is definitional.

[raimius]

91. (delayed follow up)

Which problems are you trying to solve? You kind of skipped over that.

If it is violent crime, there are many better ways to reduce the violent crime rate (and that don't violate the Constitution).
Social division, economic problems, education, and family problems play large roles, and much could be done to reduce crime rates by addressing problems in these areas.
If you see gun ownership as the problem, I don't have any sympathy for your cause. I never cared for restrictive authoritarian laws restricting possession (usually by assuming guilt before the crime).