This is pathetic!


PDA






Shawn Dodson
December 19, 2012, 07:33 PM
From my post "Sandy Hook: Looks can be Deceiving - Chances are it’s NOT an “Assault Weapon” - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=689876


Moderator Frank Ettin writes (and closes the thread):
In other words, you're saying that if Congress wishes to ban the type of rifle used at Sandy Hook, the legislation will need to be written to clearly ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. Does that really help us?

Let's not go there.

This is a discussion board. It shouldn't be a place for moderators to censor discussion because it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

The post is NOT about "Does that really help us?" It's about pointing out the obvious - that the weapon IS NOT an assault weapon.

If you enjoyed reading about "This is pathetic!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jorg Nysgerrig
December 19, 2012, 07:55 PM
I don't understand the fascination with the bizarre line of reasoning that by somehow pointing out the rifle in question may not technically be an "assault weapon" as currently defined CT law or the expired federal AWB will somehow silence the cries to ban military-style rifles capable of accepting "high-capacity" clips.

Do you think that insisting that it wasn't actually an assault weapon under that definition that the people calling for a ban are going to say, "Oh, we didn't realize that! Our bad! Let's just forget about that ban stuff and go have a beer!"

What exactly are you trying to accomplish by pointing out something that amounts to nothing more than trivia? People have been pointing this out since Friday and it hasn't seemed to slow the cries for further restriction.

At best, people merely ignore your Cliff Clavin-like level of pedantry. At worst, you help make the case for expanding previous definitions of assault weapons to encompass more firearms.

As usual, if you have an issue with the moderator staff, feel free to do one of the following:
1. PM the mod who closed it.
2. PM the mods assigned to the forum.
3. Report the closing post and the staff will review it.

Shawn Dodson
December 19, 2012, 08:22 PM
The NRA will point this important fact out on Friday in its news conference.

None of the guns that the Newtown murderer used was an assault weapon under Connecticut law. This illustrates the uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug, rather than their function.

See - "Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown" at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html

Jorg Nysgerrig
December 19, 2012, 08:38 PM
So you are pointing this out to demonstrate how bans based on cosmetic features are useless and those calling for a ban should focus on function rather than form?

Let's hope the NRA strategists have something better than that to present.

Shawn Dodson
December 19, 2012, 08:48 PM
Also being discussed here - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=690054

Cosmoline
December 19, 2012, 08:52 PM
It's an extremely important point. It's the AWB that's pedantic and idiotic. The fact that the murder weapons would still be legal under the AWB is critical. It means the AWB won't actually ban the weapons in question.

Why you would refrain from pointing that out is beyond me. We argue from facts, they argue from fear. We should NEVER shy away from facts.

People have been pointing this out since Friday and it hasn't seemed to slow the cries for further restriction.

Emotions cool. Facts remain. We must keep pushing the facts, relentlessly. Eventually they tend to win out as long as we don't give up. In this case we're arguing with one of the most idiotic pieces of legislation ever drafted. Pointing out the ways in which it is idiotic is not something to avoid.

So you are pointing this out to demonstrate how bans based on cosmetic features are useless and those calling for a ban should focus on function rather than form?

Sure, let them try to ban all semiautos. I'd like to see how well that works out for them. Their "war weapons" and "assault weapons" rhetoric is a LIE and always has been. We should never go along with it.

For example, pointing out that the most fearsome of all small arms in civilian hands is the good old huntin' rifle. It can control a half mile radius and has been used in one of the most horrific mass shootings of all time. Those of us who understand these things fear it above all other small arms. In one instance a spree killer used his single shot hunting rifle to shoot an officer OUT OF HIS HELICOPTER. That's what a simple hunting rifle can do. So are they going to ban it?

As soon as we start hiding under rocks and worrying that pointing out their many errors will make them stronger, we start giving ground to them.

JShirley
December 19, 2012, 09:03 PM
Well, if this issue is being discussed in another thread, and y'all still feel the need to discuss it, please discuss it there, okay?

Jorg, sorry, man, there's always the PM option if you think you can convert.

Thanks.

John

If you enjoyed reading about "This is pathetic!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!