|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Will The SCOTUS rule in favor of McDonald et al? |
| Yes, the Second Amendment will be incorporated. |
|
66% |
[ 4 ] |
| Yes, but the Second Amendment will not be incorporated. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| No, the ruling will favor the City of Chicago (status quo) |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
| No, the ruling will reinforce Cruikshank |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Neither, Armageddon is nigh! |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 6 |
|
| Author |
Message |
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 2:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Let me state this up-front: The subject of the McDonald v. Chicago case is handguns, not "assault weapons." Although some "assault weapons" are handguns, not all handguns are "assault weapons."
Therefore, there is no guarantee that "assault weapon" bans will be lifted.
That said, the official definition of assault rifle is:
| Quote: |
The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" being used synonymously with "assault" (ie. to "storm [assault] a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine.
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.
|
The definition of "assault weapon":
| Quote: |
The term assault weapon is a political and legal term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine [Edit note: Classification includes that such detachable magazine must contain more than 10 rounds] , and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Primary pistol grip
* Forward grip
* Threaded barrel (for a Suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
* Barrel shroud
The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly-manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers. |
Both from the wonderfully circumspect Wikipedia article found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
As you can see, the two lists aren't the same. Assault rifles must be selective fire -- if they are not then they aren't an assault rifle, they're a regular old rifle. They can have infinity+one ammunition capacity and it doesn't mean a damned thing -- it is still not an assault rifle, but a simple hunting rifle that has to be reloaded less often. Pretty scary, huh?
They must also be chambered in an intermediate cartridge. As such, fully automatic Thompsons, MP5s, MAC10s, Scorpios, and Uzis are not assault weapons. They're submachine guns -- selective fire rifles, carbines, and pistols chambered for diminutive (pistol) calibers. Still not assault rifles.
So there is a problem here. The politicians already banned real assault rifles and machine pistols. They needed a new scarecrow to burn because the real causes of crime were too politically unpopular. So they invented a new class of firearms to demonize and blame.
Kepler's post summarizes the new class. When a thing is classified it must possess all of a certain number of properties. If it does not, then it is something else. Mules and Zebras are not the same creature even though they share "3 or more" of the same features. However, you can lump all mammals into the same "species" by making a list of elective qualities (has at least two legs, breathes atmospheric oxygen, and eats organic matter -- BAM, they're all mammals. Sorry... bees... and almost everything else).
So you see the danger. You can convince anyone of anything and breed a whole lot of unfounded fear by redefining things however you like. If you define the rules of definition, you define the requisite features, and you control the naming -- son, you control the entire perceived world.
I'll now address Kepler's list as he shows an interest in it.
| Kepler wrote: |
I have asked people on the pro-gun side before to explain why such features are merely "cosmetic" since they affect more than just the appearance of the gun. I never received a satisfactory answer and wondered if these people understand the definition of the word cosmetic. |
There is a difference between functional and cosmetic. If something is not functional toward a specific end then it is cosmetic. For example, you can duct tape a chainsaw to the top of your Toyota Camry... to no functional end. It is therefore cosmetic. However, attach a chainsaw to the arm of a zombie killing badass and you have invented highly functional AWESOME. In other words, if it does not increase the effectiveness or contribute to the function of the firearm (herein defined as a weapon that contributes to harming others in a criminal fashion, thus not banning police, military or paramilitary use) then it is a cosmetic addition.
[quote]
From the Brady Campaign website about assault weapons:
| Quote: |
* A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
.38: Most rifles have detachable magazines. Traditional bolt-action and lever-action magazines do not have detachable magazines. These weapons are used for murdering bambies, they are not often used for self-defense or sport shooting. High power rifle competitions use bolt-action rifles for their strong receivers that are capable of absorbing a lot of pressure for powerful cartridges. Cowboy Action shooters use lever-action rifles because sometimes adult men like to play make-believe cowboys and indians. Hey, to each their own.
Magazine capacity is not cosmetic in terms of weapon functionality. It is, however, not conducive to crime -- only a very small number of violent crimes (crimes committed with any weapon at all, including a harsh voice) are committed with rifles. Thus: Insignificant.
* A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
.38: Folding stocks in no way inhibit accuracy (except in AR platform rifles, which has essential parts of its action built into the stock and thus cannot be folded without inhibiting everything). Folding stocks also only shave less than 8 to 12 inches off the length of the rifle. The "concealer" still has 2 of more feet to contend with. Or they could get a 6 inch long handgun and put it in their pocket. Please refer above concerning the very limited use of rifles in crimes. Irrelevant.
* A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
.38: I really try to refrain from doing this online because I find it to be kind of childish, but the absurdity of the above mandates it: LOL. Spraying from the hip? Has anyone ever actually done this from outside of Hollywood? Don't get me wrong, I've seen it done -- with a machinegun. Semi-automatic guns are kind of anti-climatic and extremely inaccurate/pointless when shot without aiming.
Aside from being a Hollywood myth that is actually very counter-productive with a semi-automatic rifle, a pistol grip requires the controlling hand to be perpendicular to the receiver (and thus the barrel's line of fire). In other words, you have to bend your wrist at an unnatural angle. As your wrist absorbs the recoil at that angle you will get lots of ouchies. There is a reason that people shoot rifles from the shoulder. Aside from aiming -- which really helps --- it also allows the body to absorb the recoil, lending stability to your arms and keeping the sights on target. Shooting from the hip has zero stability. Stock construction is therefore irrelevant to the intended function.
* A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;
.38: Barrel shrouds are "the shoulder things that goes up" 
Watch this compelling interview where Diane Feinstein explains her amazing new legislation that will end crime, which is supported by a lot of research and knowledge regarding the weapons of the criminal underworld: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo&feature=PlayList&p=B0B09B15CA8A33E7&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17
No, really, she didn't write the assault weapons ban. The VPC did -- the violence policy center. They don't know what a barrel shroud is, either, but they're terrified of it! Maybe they didn't write it, either. Maybe someone watched a bunch of movies, wrote down the features of the guns used, and then mailed them to the VPC who said "OMG I saw those movies, too" who then forwarded the list to Feinstein. I don't know, I wasn't there, bit neither of them know what they're trying to ban -- but they sure are excited about banning... whatever it was.
Barrel shrouds are (not really) a gray area. On the one hand, they do serve a purpose. Some shotguns and submachine guns do have barrel shrouds. Submachine guns have them to prevent the stabilizing hand from touching the (scorching hot) barrel during automatic fire. Submachine guns, however, are not assault weapons -- they were banned 70 years ago. You can't super-ban something, or ban-times-infinity-no-take-backs a thing. The shotguns that have barrel shrouds are actually kind of rare (and obscenely expensive -- they're called "race guns" because they're built for professional shooters, much like NASCAR has special cars) and are used in semi-automatic shotguns during trap shooting competitions where dozens of rounds are fired very quickly. Mind you, the barrel shroud does not make the shotgun fire more often, more accurately, or more effectively. It just increases the comfort of the shooter after he is done shooting. The Mossberg 590 has a heat shield that functions in the same way as a barrel shroud but isn't one -- it is not meant to be touched and should not be touched.
So a barrel shroud on a shotgun does not in anyway cool the barrel (it protects the hand that grasps the barrel, something that is both stupid and counterproductive to do when shooting). Once again, shooting from the hip is the best way to miss your target and can only do something remotely useful (look like an action movie star) when used in a fully automatic rifle -- at least then you can shoot a string toward your target.... ya know, since you can't aim at all.
Barrel shroud, therefore, is mucho cosmetic. It does not fulfill the the function it is claimed to on semi-automatic weapons. It's not even the "thing on the shoulder that goes up."
* A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
.38: Flash suppressors do not provide stability during rapid fire. Muzzle brakes dampen recoil, but are neither legally nor functionally synonymous with flash suppressors (brakes generate much more flash and report than would a naked muzzle).
Flash suppressors controls muzzle blast as it comes out of the barrel. This is advantageous as it prevents a shooter from being blinded during night shooting. It also prevents dirt from being sprayed when a shooter fires from the prone position.
Flash suppressors provide minimal concealment. First of all, there is the really, ear splitting loud BOOM that usually gives you away when you're shooting at people. Also, the flash suppressor doesn't make the flash disappear, it just redirects it, so it's still there in all of its glory. The big difference is, however, that everyone else can see it while the person shooting does not see it, thus protecting his night vision.
Flash suppressors on sporting rifles are useful for low-light shooting (dawn and dusk) and firing from the prone position (a big deal in target shooting sports). They do not stabilize a rifle during rapid fire. They are, therefore, cosmetic.
* A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
.38: Sound suppressors are not banned by the assault weapons ban. They are not banned in anyway (except against those who cannot afford or qualify for an NFA tax stamp). Therefore, banning their attachment method is pointless. Anybody with a lathe and a little know-how can thread a barrel in 10 minutes or less. It's not a big deal.
How many assassins have used suppressors in the past? Every president assassinated, John Lenin, other big wig dudes... they all went out with a bang, if you follow me.
FYI: sound suppressors are available in most countries, including nearly all of Europe, over the counter with no special permits or licenses for about 40 - 100 dollars, depending on the quality of the suppressor. It is considered a courtesy to your neighbors to use a suppressor in Europe.
Think about that for a second. European gun control (except Switzerland and Finland) makes that of the US look like total anarchy.
Threaded barrels accept flash suppressors, sound suppressors, muzzle breaks, barrel shrouds, and barrel mounted grenades (don't ask). Only two of those are in anyway effected by the assault weapons ban, one is restricted by NFA laws. Can you guess which ones? The rest are totally legal either way and therefore banning threaded barrels is banning those other features as well. Irrelevant, therefore cosmetic.
* A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle.
.38. This one is, perhaps, even better than the "thing on the shoulder that goes up." America's streets are plagued by drive-by bayoneting! Innocent men and women are caught up in the deadly crossfire of Crips vs. Bloods bayonet charges.
Seriously. Cosmetic.
|
So, in conclusion, the assault weapons ban sought to ban:
- Detachable magazines. Because reloading is so inconvenient it's criminal.
- Folding stocks. Because that extra 8 to twelve inches of a three-foot weapon enables criminals to do all kinds of mischief.
- Pistol grips. Because whether your wrist is bent 90 degrees or 45 degrees is the determining factor between firing uncriminally slowly and criminally fast. Criminals use protractors to out-wit police, its true.
- Barrel shrouds. The thing on the shoulder that goes up is responsible for 20 million homicides per year. After all, fear of slightly burning your hand was the one thing that could have prevented the Virginia Tech massacre.
- Flash suppressors. Because you don't want to lose your peripheral vision when defending a fortified position at night in downtown Chicago.
- Threaded barrels. Because you might screw something scary onto the end.
- Bayonet lugs. Drive-by bayoneting is stealing the innocence of youth. Real 'bangers gain their street cred pig-sticking the po-po.
"For sho, y'all. We be out of ammo, shit. Get out yo glocks 'n affix bayonettes, homies, cuz shit's gettin real deep all up in here!"
The assault weapons ban did not ban weapons that had those features. It banned weapons that had a combination of those features. There was a "scary threshold," a maximum "danger capacity" that a gun couldn't exceed.
In 2004 the assault weapons ban was allowed to sunset with no contest. There simply was no proof that exceeding one's evil-gun-feature quota caused crime. In fact, criminals are best known and collectively identified as those who don't abide by the law. Therefore, despite the assault weapons ban, drive-by bayonetting continued. 'Twas a bloody tragedy!
I hope this helped. Remember guys and gals -- before you think to yourself that we need more laws you might be served to know the laws that are all ready on the books. Furthermore, some laws have all ready been tried and had failed. It's important to remember our mistakes so we don't repeat them.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kepler wrote: |
If gun control in America is a failed experiment it's probably because of the inconsistency of gun laws among different states. If you want to stop the boat from sinking then you have to fix all the leaks not just some of the leaks. Scholars have disagreed about the success of handgun bans in areas like Chicago and D.C. The decline in crime in the US is probably due to factors like longer prison sentences, more police being hired, and a big drop in the demand for crack cocaine. Despite this decline the US still has a very high homicide rate compared to the rest of the developed world. Guns make crime more deadly. |
I'll agree with most of that. Here is something else to consider:
According to my own research, violent crime rises and falls similarly in all English speaking countries (except New Zealand... I had no data for the Kiwis, sorry).
Violent crime was relatively low in most countries prior to the 1960s. It rose steadily until it skyrocketed in the '80s into the '90s. In the late '90s it descended again. It plummeted in the 21st century.
Some countries had worse crime than others. Some didn't skyrocket or plummet as much as others at specific times, but they all conformed to the same median curve. All had different responses to crime.
In the mid-80s to mid-90s, all countries massively increased gun control laws following high-profile crimes that swept the media in a firestorm.
In the 2000s, the U.S. instituted massive new gun capacities. Concealed carry permits were adopted all over, castle doctrine laws were created to protect those who defend themselves, and education movements were set up to inform people about laws concerning firearms (such as the legality of openly carrying firearms in many states).
The U.S. enjoyed the same dip in crime as every other country (although the U.S. is benefiting most in terms of +/- percentage of change to the crime rate.
Recently, Congress instituted possession of firearms in national parks and forests. This only means that the same rules for carrying a firearm inside of Wal-Mart apply to Yellowstone Park. According to the media, blood will flow! Just like it does inside of Wal-Mart 
Also, Canadians will get something special soon. The National Firearms Registry might be going the way of the dodo. Analysts say it's about a done deal. How much of the registry gets dumped is yet to be determined.
Anyway, the point of this post is that gun control and crime with firearms and just crime in general is affected by much larger forces, including just plain old Anglosphere culture and the ebbs and tides that drive it.
While I don't hold the answer to the origin of crime, it's clearly not firearms. Whether firearms making crime more deadly is a good or bad thing depends on who you ask. Some people can accept a higher chance of becoming victims with a "good" chance of surviving. Other people accept a little extra danger in order to guarantee an "excellent" chance of surviving an encounter that is also less likely to occur. It's a cultural thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Special Interest groups need something to blame. They point to guns and say gun ownership is the problem.
Criminals will get their hands on firearms. Even in Korea where guns are illegal, the Korean mafia has handguns. Gun control laws only serve to restrict law abiding citizens, not criminals.
If I can carry a concealed handgun, legally, in the State of Virginia, I should be able to carry it anywhere in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Special Interest groups need something to blame. They point to guns and say gun ownership is the problem.
Criminals will get their hands on firearms. Even in Korea where guns are illegal, the Korean mafia has handguns. Gun control laws only serve to restrict law abiding citizens, not criminals.
If I can carry a concealed handgun, legally, in the State of Virginia, I should be able to carry it anywhere in the US. |
Unfortunately, my friend, the Supreme Court will not address universal reciprocity of Concealed Weapons licenses. However, not too long ago, just such a bill was narrowly defeated in Congress -- surprised the bejeezus out of everyone that so many democrats voted for it.
Not that it's such a big deal. National reciprocity could be some seriously bad juju if a particularly anti-rights president *coughcough* decided to attempt to regulate all CCW by executive order.
Also, whether there will be CCW allowed in Illinois as a whole is the business of the Illinois State Government. Currently, there is NO CCW in Illinois. The Supreme Court is treading a fine line among conservatives -- the Court is responsible for Federal matters, according to conservatives, and it should only force the states to follow directives if it is a serious Constitutional matter.
Superfluous deprivation of civil rights just so happen to be a serious Constitutional matter. Concealed carry reciprocity is not considered by the current Court to be yet as serious Constitutional matter. It should be consider it, as the "bear" part of the amendment has yet to be fully defined. No doubt it will in future cases. Until then... Keep yourself and your sidearm out of Illinois... they will do terrible things to you if they find it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
| Keep yourself and your sidearm out of Illinois... they will do terrible things to you if they find it. |
Truth. Illinois is quite the reactionary state for laws.
Speaking of Illinois and silly laws, let's not forget the village of Oak Park (the other city in the discussion.)
I'm reminded of what happened to my father a few years ago when he was driving in Forest Park (next door to Oak Park.) He ran out of gas but luckily was close to a gas station. He took his gas can across the street (and into Oak Park) to fill it but was told there was a recent law passed that prohibited dispensing gas into containers, even regulation gas cans. Why? Because someone had recently thrown a molotov cocktail to start a fire!
Brilliant isn't it? Never mind one could use something other than gasoline to start fires, or simply use a hose and syphon gas from their car.
No, we must stop arsonists by outlawing gas cans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pink
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: China
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having read all the information regarding this case and the Heller case, IMO the Bill of Rights should supersede any state or local laws. The fact that it doesn't is astonishing to me.
Another thing that is pretty astonishing to me is the power that the Supreme Court has in the US. I know we knew this already, as they gave the election to Bush. However, the way it really should be for checks and balances is that they tell Congress to clarify something that is ambiguous, and lets face it, most of these laws seem to be passed or rejected based on the political leanings of the Supreme Court...instead of passing a judgment and having that become the law of the land until Congress changes it or the next Supreme Court changes it.
I am from Canada, but reading about such high crime areas, I have to admit, I would want to own a handgun if that was me living in those areas. I would train and learn how to use it too. I think one has to either accept that what the 2nd amendment states, or remove it from the law books all together. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. Pink wrote: |
| Having read all the information regarding this case and the Heller case, IMO the Bill of Rights should supersede any state or local laws. The fact that it doesn't is astonishing to me. |
I normally pride myself on at least being able to understand and explain an alternative view even if I completely disagree with it, but the need for explicit incorporation for the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments really is pretty nonsensical.
And right away, I've already phrased the concept incorrectly since the Due Process clause bars the states from infringing on "fundamental" rights, or rights which are essential to a free society rather than rights spelled out in any of the Constitutional amendments (that "essential to a free society" concept is predictably problematic for the incorporation of the right to bear arms as a "fundamental" right given all the ostensibly successful, modern, democratic type societies that ban firearms, although this was addressed already in the OP's case discussion link as not that clear cut due to the impact of each individual nation's history and culture in shaping which rights make more sense for each particular set of citizens (kind of a weird way to talk about something that's supposed to be "fundamental")). Not only does the Fourteenth Amendment not necessarily prevent the states from infringing on the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but the rights it does protect against the states aren't necessarily limited to the Bill of Rights either (I believe there was a case a while back that supposed the concept of "contract rights" was such a non-Bill of Rights yet "fundamental" right example).
Anyway, here's a link to the opinion for the case that first established that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government, in case anyone's interested in seeing the rationale firsthand:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0032_0243_ZS.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
