Ak's Axes And Nukes

[dairygirl4u2c]

you guys can close this if you want but....

"too bad i didn't have my AK47"
you want to talk about mushy emotional appeal? who ever hears about people not saving themselves, or better yet actually saving themselves, because they had access to an AK47? i never hear about it. i agree it doesn't mean it doesn't happen but. it's just mushy emotional appeal.
who ever hears about people getting ak47ed or machine guned down? lots of pepole hear this. school shootings, irate police, gang shootings etc

there's a difference between AK47's and axes etc. the analogy makes the point that they're all killing machines, true. but, it's just an analogy, cause AK47's are mass killing machines. the analogy that axes should allow Ak's is the same as the analogy that AK's should allow nuclear arms in hand gun form etc. there are actually people who argue that.
most people don't want nuclulear arms.
so instead of all the analogies.... look to the fact.
the fact is, we don't know what save who etc.
but, i insist that common sense and understanding is that AKs kill more people than they save though, again, cause people don't hear about AKs saving people but do hear about people getting gunned down.

AKs are mass killing devices. i don't think it's unreasonable to say that banning htem or seriously limiting them to very spective people would reduce the number of them. true, criminals have them, but allowing them freely would make them a lot more available.

If you want to argue, on principle, that it doesn't matter that more peple die without the bans, but that those who can defend themselves should have full opporutnity to, then sure, that's an argument that has a basis, but at least admit what you're saying, the premises.

personally... i think reality is that if you have a gun, you're able to defend yourself... it doesn't have to be an AK.
you can have guns without having mass killing devices.
the times you'd actually need an AK are so rare as to render it far being outweighted by the times people get hosed down by them and freeer access.

the doomsday scenario of a giant invasion of the US is just that... a doomsday scenario, very unlikely to happen. again, talk about mushy emotional appeal.
and in most invastions... it wouldn't be that difficlut to arm the populace. only very very unlikely invasions would make us unable to. again, just mushy emotional appeal.

the constitution might provide an argument for mass killing devices.... but even if it did, that's not arguing sound policy, but rather techincal law. the law of man... not to downplay it completely, but it's not a policy argument.
plus... the 2nd amendment is notoriously unclear by academics, so to say it's clear is simply wrong. it could be argued either way.
personally, for those types of situations, i look past the text and look at policy, which is what should be the focus of the debating in the first place.

look past rhetoric people, and see the facts for what they are. as i see them, and i'd insist almost certainly true... more people get hosed by AKs etc than do people actually save themselves with them. (if those people had AKs would that have helped them? maybe. but the fact is they chose not to have them, many times. and usualy the free access to them simply enables someone to go on a rampage a whole lot easier. i admit studies show that guns being legal might be effective generally, but that doesn't mean mass murder weopons.)
i admit studies need done, to see which policy is most effective, if the studies can be determinative. if they can't, then people should just say.... 'if you're right about who gets saved more etc, then your position is good'

to me... mushy emotional appeal to be proAK47's etc, is usually just blind adherence by conservatives who simply want to tout the party line. it doesn't have to do with looking at the reality of the situation.

Edited February 6, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[SanctitasDeo]

Are, or were, AK-47s legal to carry in the United States? I don't know, and I'm sure someone with more knowledge on the issue can confirm this or just tell me I am mistaken, but it seems to me that one reason that more people are killed by AK-47s rather than defended by them is that the mass murderer didn't mind breaking the law a bit more by having the AK-47s.

Generally, gun carriers who save lives are law-abiding citizens who don't carry illegal weapons.

I do see the point about machine guns as mass killing weapons, but at the same time, I've read news stories about a man who killed 13 with a sword and other things like that. It seems to me that people who are trying to kill lots of people can find ways to do it. Might be harder for them, though.

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1456414' date='Feb 6 2008, 01:13 PM']you guys can close this if you want but....

"too bad i didn't have my AK47"
you want to talk about mushy emotional appeal? who ever hears about people not saving themselves, or better yet actually saving themselves, because they had access to an AK47? i never hear about it. i agree it doesn't mean it doesn't happen but. it's just mushy emotional appeal.
who ever hears about people getting ak47ed or machine guned down? lots of pepole hear this. school shootings, irate police, gang shootings etc

there's a difference between AK47's and axes etc. the analogy makes the point that they're all killing machines, true. but, it's just an analogy, cause AK47's are mass killing machines. the analogy that axes should allow Ak's is the same as the analogy that AK's should allow nuclear arms in hand gun form etc. there are actually people who argue that.
most people don't want nuclulear arms.
so instead of all the analogies.... look to the fact.
the fact is, we don't know what save who etc.
but, i insist that common sense and understanding is that AKs kill more people than they save though, again, cause people don't hear about AKs saving people but do hear about people getting gunned down.

AKs are mass killing devices. i don't think it's unreasonable to say that banning htem or seriously limiting them to very spective people would reduce the number of them. true, criminals have them, but allowing them freely would make them a lot more available.

If you want to argue, on principle, that it doesn't matter that more peple die without the bans, but that those who can defend themselves should have full opporutnity to, then sure, that's an argument that has a basis, but at least admit what you're saying, the premises.

personally... i think reality is that if you have a gun, you're able to defend yourself... it doesn't have to be an AK.
you can have guns without having mass killing devices.
the times you'd actually need an AK are so rare as to render it far being outweighted by the times people get hosed down by them and freeer access.

the doomsday scenario of a giant invasion of the US is just that... a doomsday scenario, very unlikely to happen. again, talk about mushy emotional appeal.
and in most invastions... it wouldn't be that difficlut to arm the populace. only very very unlikely invasions would make us unable to. again, just mushy emotional appeal.

the constitution might provide an argument for mass killing devices.... but even if it did, that's not arguing sound policy, but rather techincal law. the law of man... not to downplay it completely, but it's not a policy argument.
plus... the 2nd amendment is notoriously unclear by academics, so to say it's clear is simply wrong. it could be argued either way.
personally, for those types of situations, i look past the text and look at policy, which is what should be the focus of the debating in the first place.

look past rhetoric people, and see the facts for what they are. as i see them, and i'd insist almost certainly true... more people get hosed by AKs etc than do people actually save themselves with them. (if those people had AKs would that have helped them? maybe. but the fact is they chose not to have them, many times. and usualy the free access to them simply enables someone to go on a rampage a whole lot easier. i admit studies show that guns being legal might be effective generally, but that doesn't mean mass murder weopons.)
i admit studies need done, to see which policy is most effective, if the studies can be determinative. if they can't, then people should just say.... 'if you're right about who gets saved more etc, then your position is good'

to me... mushy emotional appeal to be proAK47's etc, is usually just blind adherence by conservatives who simply want to tout the party line. it doesn't have to do with looking at the reality of the situation.[/quote]

Hello dairygirl, first full disclosure about me: I am a card carrying member of the NRA so of course I am going to disagree with everything you have to say.

Ok here is what I think. First off it is completely legal to own an ak-47 provided it is completely semi-automatic. Speaking of "emotional appeal" the Ak-47 is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle you can buy today. But people tend to hyperfocus on this one. I'm not really sure why. Technically they arent true ak-47s but legal semiauto versions but we wont get into that. Anyhoo the idea that it is a "mass killing machine" is a little over the top. In fact a Clinton adminstration study found that military-style semiautomatic guns where used in get this....2% of firearms related crimes. Here is the linky from the department of Justice: [url="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm"]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm[/url]

2%! Thats it. Really your "mass killing machines" should be handguns which had a larger share of the pie. But then there is the "emotional appeal" you were talking about. Let alont the fact that. There were twice as many unintentional poisonings in 2004 as gun homicides and there were more deaths by falling, too. According to the CDC. (sorry for lack of a link but my lunch break is over if you really want it I will find it for you) Statistically, you would save more lives launching a campaign against oysters and ladders. But then that lacks the "emotioanl appeal" you were talking about.

Also I would like to point out this statement: "the 2nd amendment is notoriously unclear by academics, so to say it's clear is simply wrong. it could be argued either way." It actually can't be taken either way and here is why: "The right of the people" has been taken to mean the rights of the individual IN EVERY OTHER AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION. That's pretty much the end of that argument.

Maybe you should examine why you have such vitriol for the much maligned Ak-47. I believe it is because of what Kevin Yuill describes in his article "Who's afraid of gun culture?", as the "very concept of an active, self-creating subject". The AK-47 i guess represents that in an extreme symbology. Here is the linky for that article you can read if you have an open mind to alternative opinions, but I fear that may not be the case from a person who uses the phrase "mass-killing device":
[url="http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4158/"]http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4158/[/url]

Edited February 6, 2008 by Spamity Calamity

[Deb]

I don't think I ever want to wear a hair net.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1456485' date='Feb 6 2008, 03:20 PM']Hello dairygirl, first full disclosure about me: I am a card carrying member of the NRA so of course I am going to disagree with everything you have to say.

Ok here is what I think. First off it is completely legal to own an ak-47 provided it is completely semi-automatic. Speaking of "emotional appeal" the Ak-47 is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle you can buy today. But people tend to hyperfocus on this one. I'm not really sure why. Technically they arent true ak-47s but legal semiauto versions but we wont get into that. Anyhoo the idea that it is a "mass killing machine" is a little over the top. In fact a Clinton adminstration study found that military-style semiautomatic guns where used in get this....2% of firearms related crimes. Here is the linky from the department of Justice: [url="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm"]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm[/url]

2%! Thats it. Really your "mass killing machines" should be handguns which had a larger share of the pie. But then there is the "emotional appeal" you were talking about. Let alont the fact that. There were twice as many unintentional poisonings in 2004 as gun homicides and there were more deaths by falling, too. According to the CDC. (sorry for lack of a link but my lunch break is over if you really want it I will find it for you) Statistically, you would save more lives launching a campaign against oysters and ladders. But then that lacks the "emotioanl appeal" you were talking about.

Also I would like to point out this statement: "the 2nd amendment is notoriously unclear by academics, so to say it's clear is simply wrong. it could be argued either way." It actually can't be taken either way and here is why: "The right of the people" has been taken to mean the rights of the individual IN EVERY OTHER AMENDMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION. That's pretty much the end of that argument.

Maybe you should examine why you have such vitriol for the much maligned Ak-47. I believe it is because of what Kevin Yuill describes in his article "Who's afraid of gun culture?", as the "very concept of an active, self-creating subject". The AK-47 i guess represents that in an extreme symbology. Here is the linky for that article you can read if you have an open mind to alternative opinions, but I fear that may not be the case from a person who uses the phrase "mass-killing device":
[url="http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4158/"]http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4158/[/url][/quote]

spamity. if you can provide stats that show they save more lives, i'll change my position. anyone who knows me know that. i question your open minded ness etc since you haven't given me anything and are an NRA member.

2% is a lot! first off. multiply that by how mnay killings there are. someone who can go out and weed down people is not good thing. pistols are better able to be contained. notice... you didn't show that they actually accomploish self defense etc. that was my main point, yet you didn't respond it it. seeing as i acknowledge that people should have guns... the only real thing you've shown is that machine guns etc is indeed a problem.
second off, even if it was a small number... that doens't mean we shouldn't do anything about it.

also.. i think the right to bear arms is constitutional. that doens't mean the rightto bear machine guns, or nuke guns is constitutiaonl. "the right to militia. the right to bear arms" that's it. if you can carry a gun, you're not being infringed. now, some people say the right to mliita imlies right ot machien guns etc. that's not necessarily the case for several reasons. anyway, i'm not gonna argue this... cause academics dispute this... it's notoriously vague, and to say otherwise is simply wrong.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Costitution#_note-0"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendm...itution#_note-0[/url]
the argument is about policy, which you have not shown to be wise in your favor.
and if it was in your favor... do you want the only reason you get guns is bc of a techincal law and not sound policy?

also... poisons should be outlawed too if they serve no real purpose other than to kill people. mass killing devices are meat to kill people. poisos that are for everday stuff but are used to kill it gets grayer, ut these are not the saem as mass killing devices. and as for falling etc... those are accidents, unintentional, and that's life. guns are something that we can control, and these involve intentional acts. these points are not analogous and you haven't made a point.

the only reason i'm not changing my mind is because of poor arguments, and what appears to be rationalization... unconscious perhaps, but really, if you look at what you responded wtih, i'm sure you'd agree if you think about it.

Edited February 6, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Deb]

If God ever gives me hemorroids, I will be greatly disappointed.

[dairygirl4u2c]

here's my proof that it's unclear......................
[mod]link is not appropriate for phatmass[/mod]

i do admit if you have an argument, it's the techiincal legal argument about the constitution. i still don't think it's clear, depending on how you read it. and ultimtely that doesn't prove anything about the wiseness of allowing mass killing machines.

[Deb]

I can hardly believe that spam is really considered meat. Puzzling, it tis.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1456540' date='Feb 6 2008, 03:46 PM'][mod]link not appropriate for phatmass[/mod][/quote]
Very sexy link dairygirl

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1456540' date='Feb 6 2008, 03:46 PM']here's my proof that it's unclear......................
[mod]link not appropriate for phatmass[/mod]

i do admit if you have an argument, it's the techiincal legal argument about the constitution. i still don't think it's clear, depending on how you read it. and ultimtely that doesn't prove anything about the wiseness of allowing mass killing machines.[/quote]

Ah, ok. I couldnt open that link at work so I waited till I got home. I was going to get you some good statistics that you said would change your mind till I clicked on that link. I suspected that you werent trying terribly hard to argue when you linked to wikipedia. I mean come on. Wikipedia? And now a link to a Family Guy clip? I told you I was a member of the NRA because I was trying to be honest and open and let you know where I was coming from. I tried to give you an intelligent argument. I really thought I could change your mind because I thought you were genuinely seeking answers to your question. And I contributed to this thread because I know alot about this subject. I build Ak-47's as a hobby. I have two of them sitting against my wall right now while I'm typing this. I can in fact articulate your argument better than you can. Unfortunately it's clear you either arent capable of responding intelligently or don't want to. Obviously you just shut down mentally as soon as I told you I am in the NRA. This is clear evidence of your bigotry. I am not going to waste my time on you anymore. Here is a wikipedia entry for you: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot[/url]

Edited February 7, 2008 by Lil Red

[rkwright]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1456694' date='Feb 6 2008, 07:54 PM']Ah, ok. I couldnt open that link at work so I waited till I got home. I was going to get you some good statistics that you said would change your mind till I clicked on that link. I suspected that you werent trying terribly hard to argue when you linked to wikipedia. I mean come on. Wikipedia? And now a link to a Family Guy clip? I told you I was a member of the NRA because I was trying to be honest and open and let you know where I was coming from. I tried to give you an intelligent argument. I really thought I could change your mind because I thought you were genuinely seeking answers to your question. And I contributed to this thread because I know alot about this subject. I build Ak-47's as a hobby. I have two of them sitting against my wall right now while I'm typing this. I can in fact articulate your argument better than you can. Unfortunately it's clear you either arent capable of responding intelligently or don't want to. Obviously you just shut down mentally as soon as I told you I am in the NRA. This is clear evidence of your bigotry. I am not going to waste my time on you anymore. Here is a wikipedia entry for you: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot[/url][/quote]

I'll play for a bit...

What do you need 2 AK-47's for? IMHO These are tools soley meant for the killing of humans. As far as home defense goes, what can an AK-47 do that a .45 pistol cannot? I would even wager that the .45 has much more stopping power and would be much more effective.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1456694' date='Feb 6 2008, 08:54 PM']Ah, ok. I couldnt open that link at work so I waited till I got home. I was going to get you some good statistics that you said would change your mind till I clicked on that link. I suspected that you werent trying terribly hard to argue when you linked to wikipedia. I mean come on. Wikipedia? And now a link to a Family Guy clip? I told you I was a member of the NRA because I was trying to be honest and open and let you know where I was coming from. I tried to give you an intelligent argument. I really thought I could change your mind because I thought you were genuinely seeking answers to your question. And I contributed to this thread because I know alot about this subject. I build Ak-47's as a hobby. I have two of them sitting against my wall right now while I'm typing this. I can in fact articulate your argument better than you can. Unfortunately it's clear you either arent capable of responding intelligently or don't want to. Obviously you just shut down mentally as soon as I told you I am in the NRA. This is clear evidence of your bigotry. I am not going to waste my time on you anymore. Here is a wikipedia entry for you: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot[/url][/quote]

so in addition to not being opened minded (as far as i can see by the way you're acting), or giving meaningful arguments to me, you've also succumbed to name calling?
something tells me that your calling me a bigot is merely you feeling insecure about yourself... or wanting to reverse the gears from all the people calling you one or something.
i really don't think you're a bigot for having guns, or being conservative if you are one.
i really have no idea why you called me one given all my arguments. it seems like a juvenile thing to do.
you the one who started assuming i wouldn't be openminded... by the lack of content in your post, and the NRA thing, i was merely returning the favor.
from where i'm sitting, my own conclusion is that you have no arguments and so you chose not to respond, but instead chose to call me a bigot. ad hominem, probably.

the family guy link was a joke. just playing.
the wikipedia link was formidable. just because i cite wikipedia, does not automatically mean i'm being intelletcually dishonest. people who actually research stuff for a living, like me, use wikipedia. we don't rely on it. it's merely a jumping off point, and can have good links. most scholars i know say that. dissing wikipedia might be something that appears wise to the layman, but it's not when you really get down to it.
for example. if you notice in the article.... there's multiple generic constitutional arguments for and against various gun rights. you can even see the constituitonal author "chemerinsky" argue for "rational basis" review. he's one of the formost constitional law dudes out there. i'd explain what all this means, if you wanted, but i really don't want to continue discussing the legal topics unless you see something full proof, which i really doubt you can do. but i am willing to look if you have an argument.

find the stats that you have, and i'll change my mind if you can show semi automatics etc are more effective. or actually form a compelling argument, or show me how your last post actually made any points.

Edited February 7, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also what rk said.
i did make that argument in my initial post, but he had another good way of saying it.
[quote]personally... i think reality is that if you have a gun, you're able to defend yourself... it doesn't have to be an AK.
you can have guns without having mass killing devices.
the times you'd actually need an AK are so rare as to render it far being outweighted by the times people get hosed down by them and freeer access.[/quote]

it looks like the only argument that really exists is what i predicted to begin with:
[quote]If you want to argue, on principle, that it doesn't matter that more peple die without the bans, but that those who can defend themselves should have full opporutnity to, then sure, that's an argument that has a basis, but at least admit what you're saying, the premises.[/quote]

Edited February 7, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

here's some constituional arguments. i didn't want you to think i was avoiding the issue, and i decided to post this in the other thread so:


you left out the clause that conditions what you quoted:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


the constitution only prevents congress from doing things. most conservatives say, and most justices agree, that states can do what ever they want, as a starting supposition. the only way the states are regulted is through the 14th amendment which came later in our country through judicial manuevering. so even if the congress cant limit the rights to guns, that doesn't mean a state can't. a conservative should admit this just to be consistent.

the only way the 2nd amendment could apply to the states is by "fundamental rights". historically, this has meant that it doesn't matter what the constitution or bill of rights says, but rather what the justices feel is fundamental. so, the argument is purely a matter of what sounds good, as far as that goes. sure, what the 2nd says as per ocngress is a good indicator, but it's not definitive, at least by precedent so far.

even the second on its face is heavily disputed, rationally:
[quote]Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] Most circuit court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia. There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[7]

Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause[8] and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all constitute infringement, and why have federal regulations been allowed.)[9][10] All federal courts have found that reasonable firearm regulation is allowable, while an outright firearm ban is currently the subject of Supreme Court review in District of Columbia v. Heller.[/quote]

if the gov allows for a militia and lets them have AKs etc... but bans guns, or at least AKs... that's not without the meaning of the amendment. who should decide? rational basis and eference to the people says the people should be able to, not judicial imputing of what it thinks when it's not clear.
[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301508.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7031301508.html[/url]

plus if you have the right to a pistol, that means you're carrying guns. you're not being infringed.
and, to be consistant for most conservatives anyway, the right to be a militia from everyone having guns is a good argument.... but the framers never knew of AKs etc, so the burden should be on those who say AKs shoud be included. we don't have an evolving constitution, after all, right?

Edited February 7, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1456845' date='Feb 6 2008, 11:34 PM']here's some constituional arguments. i didn't want you to think i was avoiding the issue, and i decided to post this in the other thread so:
you left out the clause that conditions what you quoted:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
the constitution only prevents congress from doing things. most conservatives say, and most justices agree, that states can do what ever they want, as a starting supposition. the only way the states are regulted is through the 14th amendment which came later in our country through judicial manuevering. so even if the congress cant limit the rights to guns, that doesn't mean a state can't. a conservative should admit this just to be consistent.[/quote]

I have to strongly disagree with this point. The 2nd amendment only applies to congress, but the 14th applies the 2nd to the States. Regardless of how the 14th amendment came about (BTW it couldn't have been judicial maneuvering, amendments must be passed in congress), it is good law. The States cannot infringe on any of the rights of the Constitution, the 2nd amendment included.