While y'all are bickering about guns...

[Stinger]

Once you people decide to drop the NRA bull crap and focus on THAT ISSUE then we might make some progress but I'm not holding my breath.

To the fundamentals: (1) the NRA is a well-funded, well-organized group with a strong lobbying arm. Right? (2) The NRA has had much success in its political efforts, both nationally and in essentially all states. Right? (3) The NRA's goals include avoiding any law or regulation that limits what it sees as Second Amendment Rights. Right? (yes, I know there are Second Amendment rights, but not everyone - even Supreme Court Justices - sees them exactly the same.) (4) The NRA resists all efforts at limiting use of firearms, registration of firearms, or any regulation of firearms and related activities. Right?

They are the 800 pound gorilla, and own way more members of Congress than the rest of us. They have drafted most of the current gun legislation (like take your guns to work), and are given "approval" privileges on most legislation proposed. They can't be dropped from any discussion of firearms - and would refuse to be dropped even if we tried.

Don't forget their stupid stance against banning so-called "cop-killer" rounds and composite guns.

"No, they have legitimate purposes. You can't ban anything."

[Stinger]

Not taking sides here, but it appears that Mad American has all of you 'out-gunned' (no pun intended)
in the knowledge of guns department. Carry on.

Knowledge of guns has nothing to do with validity of the argument. Knowledge of guns can be used to deflect and "Johnny Cochran" legitimate points in an argument.

[Stinger]

... Your "really badass gun" is actually a mean looking wimp and not one that I would reach for in ANY situation.

Could be, but there are many who actually use the MP5 who would disagree with you, including Navy SEALs and many other elite counter-terrorist units around the world – such as the British SAS, Germany’s GSG 9, and Spain’s GEO. Not that I know anything about it, but I think your opinion is in the minority. In any case, since the average mass killer wannabe is likely way less knowledgeable than you, I'd guess if he could get his hands on an MP5, he'd use it. It would appear that restrictions on civilian ownership/use of specified firearm types can work.

The MP-5 is well suited for the purpose that those units use it for. It is a close quarters combat weapon, that is designed to put A LOT of smaller, short range, low energy bullets in the air fast. The calibers used are not known for traveling on once striking objects, or if they do they are greatly reduced, thus reducing "friendly fire" incidents. Simply put the MP-5 is a specific purpose weapon, that serves that purpose well, but in the grand scheme it is far from the category of "badass".

So the SEALS and SAS use wimpy weapons?

The MP5 is a "badass" enough weapon for SEALS, SAS, and others to use in close quarters when you want to spray bullets at anything that moves.

Doesn't that kind of sound like your basic school shooting / mass murder scenario?

I believe, despite your impotent attempted obfuscations, that O Really's point stands: The HP5 would be an ideal weapon for mass murderers to use, other than the outlier like Charles Whitman. And the HP5 isn't used because it's expensive and hard to get.

[Mad American]

So the SEALS and SAS use wimpy weapons?

No, they use weapons in particular situations that are suited for that particular purpose. An entry team would not use a sniper rifle and a sniper would not use an MP-5. A plumber doesn't use a skil-saw to cut copper tubing

The MP5 is a "badass" enough weapon for SEALS, SAS, and others to use in close quarters when you want to spray bullets at anything that moves.

Again a specific purpose in a specific situation.

Doesn't that kind of sound like your basic school shooting / mass murder scenario?

Not really. The military MP-5 is still used in full automatic mode, a function that has been banned for civilain ownership for quite some time

I believe, despite your impotent attempted obfuscations, that O Really's point stands: The HP5 would be an ideal weapon for mass murderers to use, other than the outlier like Charles Whitman. And the HP5 isn't used because it's expensive and hard to get.

You are free to believe that if you wish. Ballistics and operation of the firearm say otherwise. This is where that knowledge of guns comes in handy!

[Stinger]

So the SEALS and SAS use wimpy weapons?

No, they use weapons in particular situations that are suited for that particular purpose. An entry team would not use a sniper rifle and a sniper would not use an MP-5. A plumber doesn't use a skil-saw to cut copper tubing

Wow. You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you? Or is it just a basic dishonesty problem?

You said that the MP5 was not a badass weapon. It is used by SEALs, SAS, and other elite groups. Therefore, they use, by your definition, non-badass -- i.e. wimpy -- weapons.

Logic much?

Your impotent attempts at deflection concerning sniper rifles and entry teams is noted as such. No one was discussing using sniper rifles as entry weapons. Where do you come up with such stupid ideas?

The MP5 is a "badass" enough weapon for SEALS, SAS, and others to use in close quarters when you want to spray bullets at anything that moves.

Again a specific purpose in a specific situation.

Again, that was the point. Other than outliers like Charles Whitman, most mass murderers are in close quarters and want to spray many bullets as possible at anything that moves.

Sorry you keep missing that. Don't know if it's the lack of comprehension skills or just basic dishonesty.

Doesn't that kind of sound like your basic school shooting / mass murder scenario?

Not really. The military MP-5 is still used in full automatic mode, a function that has been banned for civilain ownership for quite some time

close quarters and want to spray many bullets as possible at anything that moves.

Sorry you keep missing that. Don't know if it's the lack of comprehension skills or just basic dishonesty.[/color][/b]

I believe, despite your impotent attempted obfuscations, that O Really's point stands: The HP5 would be an ideal weapon for mass murderers to use, other than the outlier like Charles Whitman. And the HP5 isn't used because it's expensive and hard to get.

You are free to believe that if you wish. Ballistics and operation of the firearm say otherwise. This is where that knowledge of guns comes in handy!

Knowledge of guns has nothing to do with this. Common sense and knowledge of logic do . . . and you just failed.

You are free to dissemble and deflect, however impotently you can manage, in order to ignore the semi that just ran over you -- the HP5 is an outstanding choice for a close-range, spray-as-many-bullets-as-possible -- i.e. typical mass shooting -- scenario.

Hope you got the tag number.

[Mad American]

OK Stinger, what ever you say. Just before you start talking knowledge and all the other usless crap that spews out of your mouth, I would suggest at least learning that we are currently discussing the MP-5 not the HP5...and the MP-5 was originally known as the HK54, or the UMP....never been known as a HP5....and you want to preach about "knowledge" to me.

[O Really]

Not taking sides here, but it appears that Mad American has all of you 'out-gunned' (no pun intended)
in the knowledge of guns department. Carry on.

Mad American has a great wealth of knowledge about firearms - coincidentally equaling that vast body of gun facts - significant and trivial - held by the late Nascar. But that's not really the point the rest of us are talking about is it? Sorta like arguing over the gear ratios of BMW's and F-150's when everybody else is talking about speed limits.

[mike]

Not taking sides here, but it appears that Mad American has all of you 'out-gunned' (no pun intended)
in the knowledge of guns department. Carry on.

Mad American has a great wealth of knowledge about firearms - coincidentally equaling that vast body of gun facts - significant and trivial - held by the late Nascar. But that's not really the point the rest of us are talking about is it? Sorta like arguing over the gear ratios of BMW's and F-150's when everybody else is talking about speed limits.

Exactly, Counselor.
Again, anyone other than a "well regulated militia", according to the second amendment, does not have the innate right to bear arms (on a warm day, of course, they can bare them).

The 2nd amendment has been far too twisted out of the "original intent" thereof by the gun-nutters.

Nukes for all!

[Mad American]

Not taking sides here, but it appears that Mad American has all of you 'out-gunned' (no pun intended)
in the knowledge of guns department. Carry on.

Mad American has a great wealth of knowledge about firearms - coincidentally equaling that vast body of gun facts - significant and trivial - held by the late Nascar. But that's not really the point the rest of us are talking about is it? Sorta like arguing over the gear ratios of BMW's and F-150's when everybody else is talking about speed limits.

Exactly, Counselor.
Again, anyone other than a "well regulated militia", according to the second amendment, does not have the innate right to bear arms (on a warm day, of course, they can bare them).

The 2nd amendment has been far too twisted out of the "original intent" thereof by the gun-nutters.

Nukes for all!

O'really it is a great deal of knowledge about guns that enables me to have an educated discussion about guns and gun law. For instance knowing the difference between a true military assault rifle, which has been banned since 1986, and a modern sporting "look alike". Also, knowing the difference between and the capabilities of a .223, a 9mm, a 5.56, a 300 Win Mag, and a 12 gauge, or that a proficient shooter can change magazines in tenths of a second is very germain to the topic at hand. Yes, the gear ratios may be different in a BMW and a F-150 but that gearing does affect the vehicles top speed.

Mike, I have proven that a militia is made up of general citizens and members of the public.... in other words....PEOPLE. So if the militia is "well regulated" it is the PEOPLE not the guns. The Second amendment does NOT say 'well regulated guns, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to form milita shall, not be infringed. It says, as you so often point out, that the MILITA is regulated and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The regulation is law placed on the behavior of PEOPLE, not regulation to limit ownership of guns.

[mike]

Great! Then let's regulate the people who own guns (arms, whatever) even further ... right?

Else ... again, Nukes for all!!! All we gotta do then is regulate the people owning the Nukes, eh?

Are you with me?

[Mad American]

Great! Then let's regulate the people who own guns (arms, whatever) even further ... right?

Else ... again, Nukes for all!!! All we gotta do then is regulate the people owning the Nukes, eh?

Are you with me?

I am not with you Mike. Your feeble attempt at making a point by using nukes is both idiotic and out of context. We are talking about GUNS not weapons of mass destruction.

However, if you want to have a serious discussion about regulating the people that own guns then by all means lets discuss. Let talk about mandatory life sentences with no parole for crime involving guns such as armed robbery and assaults. Lets talk about mandatory death penalties by public execution in the electric chiar or by hanging with no appeals process for gun murders. Lets talk about the REAL efforts by the NRA as they lobby for stiffer penalties for gun offenders. Lets talk about the continuing NRA efforts to teach firearms safety to people all over the nation. Sure, we can talk about regulating the people. Lets talk.

[mike]

I am not with you Mike. Your feeble attempt at making a point by using nukes is both idiotic and out of context. We are talking about GUNS not weapons of mass destruction.
...

Once you get past lying about the killing of 26 people is not "mass destruction," we can further discuss the rest of your post.

Nukes for all!!!! You never know when you have to kill 26 people or 10,000 people as a private citizen of the great ol' gun-lovin' America! ... right?

[O Really]

Analogies by definition can appear extreme, but Mike's nuke comments are on point. The whole basis of any Second Amendment discussion (which controls what restrictions of firearms might be possible) is in the definition of what "arms" are that can be "borne" with Constitutional protection. The Second does not address "rifles" "shotguns" "pistols" or even "firearms." It does not distinguish among calibre or gauge, type of action or shape of stock or firing pin. It simply addresses the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms." So is a grenade launcher an "arm?" How about a homemade zip gun? If "arms" are defined in relation to "bear" then the usual limitation has been on those weapons that can be carried. Which would include a suitcase nuke. The entire argument is over what is protected and what can be limited. The NRA argues that there should be no limitations. Rational people disagree, and would argue that there are Constitutionally compliant restrictions that can be applied to certain weapons. The only real question is where is that line.

[Mad American]

I have not said anything about the killing of 26 people not being mass destruction so it is you who lie Mike. However, since you brought it up and O'really seems to agree....lets talk about killing 168, 19 under age 6, wounding 450 more, the whole thing taking about half a second, and using a true WMD to accomplish the task. While we are at it lets find all the instances where the NRA has stood for allowing bombs, WMD's and nukes to be owned by the general citizenry. Sensationalism only serves to reduce both of your credibilities. The NRA fights for the right to own GUNS and I am attempting to debate where O'really's "line" should be. The only problem is that when presented with FACTS regarding guns, what are and are not assualt weapons, and firearms capabilities the anti-gun argument begins to crumble and the sensationalism of talking about grenade launchers and nukes pops in.

[mike]

I have not said anything about the killing of 26 people not being mass destruction so it is you who lie Mike.

Really?
You asserted that Nukes are only used for "mass destruction." Whereas, the assault weapon used to kill 26 people has nothing to do with "mass destruction." ... Do you forget too easily or is the NRA taking over your brain?

I am not with you Mike. Your feeble attempt at making a point by using nukes is both idiotic and out of context. We are talking about GUNS not weapons of mass destruction.

[Stinger]

OK Stinger, what ever you say. Just before you start talking knowledge and all the other usless crap that spews out of your mouth, I would suggest at least learning that we are currently discussing the MP-5 not the HP5...and the MP-5 was originally known as the HK54, or the UMP....never been known as a HP5....and you want to preach about "knowledge" to me.

No, I wasn't preaching about "knowledge" to you. In fact, I said, "Knowledge of guns has nothing to do with this." You really should get someone to help you with your reading comprehension problem.

I would suggest you get some help with that reading comprehension problem and with that inability to grasp simple logic or apply common sense.


Typos have nothing to do with this, either, and the useless crap -- e.g. using a sniper rifle as an entry weapon -- is what's spewing from your mouth.

SSDD.

All your pitiful attempts to obfuscate with arcane chatter come to naught. The MP-5 is an excellent choice for up-close slaughter, but it's not used by mass murderers because it's expensive and hard to obtain.

[Stinger]

Not taking sides here, but it appears that Mad American has all of you 'out-gunned' (no pun intended)
in the knowledge of guns department. Carry on.

Mad American has a great wealth of knowledge about firearms - coincidentally equaling that vast body of gun facts - significant and trivial - held by the late Nascar. But that's not really the point the rest of us are talking about is it? Sorta like arguing over the gear ratios of BMW's and F-150's when everybody else is talking about speed limits.

If you can't beat 'em with logic and rational thought, blow smoke with arcane trivia and act like you made a point.

[mike]

I know where I'd draw it and, certainly, it's not popular.

Many miss my assertion and continued posting regarding "well-regulated."

I'm sure nascarfan88, as well as the NRA, hates me ... we'll have to wait for him to come back with his next talking points and weak defense of what constitutes "mass destruction."

Nukes for all, I tell ya!

[mike]

...from my cold, glowing hand.

lawl ...

Hey, wasn't that a muzzle loader Heston was holding up in that iconic speech for the NRA?

Where was his AR-15 or his "wimpy" MP-5?

[Mad American]

"Arms" can mean the original definition - single shot muzzle loaders.
It doesn't mean solely "GUNS", but if it did it would have to include full-auto assault rifles, machine guns and possibly artillery.
It could mean all arms, as Partisan62 thinks, but that would include nukes and tanks.

If you accept that there is no right to all "Arms", then any limitation other than bans on single shot muzzle loaders is constitutional and society gets to decide where to draw the line.

I've lost track of how many times you have used this incorrect analogy but I feel now is a good time to point out your error. At the time of the second amendment "arms" would have applied to not only single shot muzzleloaders but to 4, 6 and 8 inch cannons, mortars, and any other black powder fired artillery of the time. So please, find me where it was argued that period artillery was considered as "arms" at the time. You must also agree then, that the proposed Feinstein legislation is unconstitutional because it will ban several models of single shot muzzleloaders, right? In addition, if your logic is properly applied then the first amendment would only apply to print media produced on a moveable type printing press due to that being all that was available at the time.

Yes, I agree that there needs to be a REASONABLE restriction on the definition of arms and I feel that definition can be found in looking at your incorrect analogy of single shot muzzleloaders. By that I mean a hand held weapon that delivers a single non-exploding projectile, or a single semi-contained group of small projectiles (shotguns) with each pull of the trigger. Technology has decreased "lock time", increased capacity and decreased re-load time. However, firearms today are nothing more than modern day "muzzleloaders" that technology have improved over time.