Another win for the Left (Moved from Legal)

Col. Bella, in Red Dawn; "
Yes ... yes. Go to the sporting goods store. From the files obtain forms 4473. These will contain descriptions of weapons, and lists of private ownership.
"

I'm going to chime in on the semantics of "assault rifle" "modern sporting rifle" "AR15/M16" etc.

I understand that the media likes to use the term "assault rifle" in a pejorative way to drum up opposition to them. I understand that the term "assault rifle" originally meant capable of full auto fire. I understand that an AR15 is a semi-auto only version of an M16, which is capable of either full auto or burst fire.

What I don't understand is why gun owners insist on fighting this semantic fight. The difference is insignificant. When I was in the Army, we were punished for using the burst mode (M16A2). I did many laps around the barracks with my rifle over my head for flipping that switch one more notch. My point is this: if the Army trains their troops NOT to use the auto/burst function; if the Army trains their troops specifically to use only the semi-auto function (the exception being final defensive fire), then how is the full auto mode even relevant? How then, in terms of practical use is an AR15 any different than the way in which the Army typically uses an M16? In practical terms, if a villain is capable of killing 50+ people in a few minutes (which has now happened at least 3 times) using a semi-auto rifle, then why are we even debating the terminology, much less berating others for using the "assault rifle" term? The AR15 has like 2-3 parts difference than the M16. The gun was designed for the battlefield. (Which is why, according to the founders and the 2nd amendment, citizens should own them.) I think it's way past time to let this semantic issue go and move on to other, more relevant things.

The New Zealand police have posted a form online for owners of the affected weapons to use to "apply" to turn them in. The owners are to fill out the form online, and then they will be contacted by the police to arrange the details of the surrender or pickup of the guns. (Strangely, the police are promising: "Recognising how personal this item is to you, please be assured that we will take every precaution to ensure that your firearm(s) are handled and held in the appropriate manner.") Gun owners and pro-gun activists in the U.S. are having a field day spamming this form and trolling the NZ police. I couldn't stop laughing when I saw this. Apparently thousands of fake "applications" are being filed, many in the names of NZ politicians and leading citizens, including the Prime Minister. There is even a "fake name generator" online that will give plausible NZ addresses. Some are using the addresses of donut shops, rugby stadiums, etc., in NZ. The more sophisticated spammers are using NZ IP addresses generated through VPN's, etc. This is a major operation that is gathering steam, to make the NZ police look like fools. The idea is to bog them down hopelessly. At least it's good for laughs.

ETA: The NZ police wised up. The following was posted where the form used to be, on their web site:
Well, it was good while it lasted.

ETA2: The campaign did have the effect of making the form unusable even for NZ residents. Here's the latest PA from the NZ police:
This sort of "guerrilla warfare" may come in handy if such a thing is ever tried here.

D.B. Cooper said:

I'm going to chime in on the semantics of "assault rifle" "modern sporting rifle" "AR15/M16" etc.

I understand that the media likes to use the term "assault rifle" in a pejorative way to drum up opposition to them. I understand that the term "assault rifle" originally meant capable of full auto fire. I understand that an AR15 is a semi-auto only version of an M16, which is capable of either full auto or burst fire.

What I don't understand is why gun owners insist on fighting this semantic fight.

Click to expand...

If it was normally possible to have a rationed, evidence-based discussion with someone of an opposing political/philosophical viewpoint on a "contentious" topic in this country then I'd agree. However I don't believe that's where we are at present.

I suspect most people on here have heard of the "boiling a frog" idea. No idea if it actually works on frogs or not, but I think there's ample evidence from history that it works on people. You can go with the "First they came for the..." poem if you want a literary vehicle.

There are a lot of people out there who want to send people with guns to take away our guns. These people know darn well that guns are power, and they want sole control of that power. It doesn't matter what we say to those people or what terms we use.

There are a lot MORE people out there who don't own guns (or maybe they own a gun but don't really think about it much and have no idea when they last shot it - if ever). They certainly don't care about guns. They're either convinced they could never need to fight against their government or they've never even considered it. Since they don't own guns, don't care about guns, and don't see a use for guns they're really just fine with guns being taken away from other people - especially if they're convinced that guns are horrible death machines and thus anyone who voluntarily owns one must be a bad person.

It is THOSE people we need to reach, and those people who are swayed by terms like "assault rifle." "High capacity magazine." "Mass shooting." Those are the people who think a "gun free zone" means that no one can possibly be shot there - because there's no guns, right?

So, yes, I believe we DO need to have the semantic fights (and come up with and widely use more accurate terms and/or less emotionally-laden terms: standard capacity magazine, for example.

Because those people who don't care? They vote. And they give money to "good" causes - like saving children from guns. Who can be against something that protects children? And obviously "assault rifles" have no place around children.

I don't know if we can "win" the war of words, but I'd rather have that kind of war than a real one.

Charlie Martinez said:

From what I read in the news "military style" semi automatic weapons are no longer restricted, they are now prohibited & all owners have to turn them in or suffer the consequences. I guess under that description even a 1911 pistol would be illegal.
Our Constitution is probably the best legislative document ever written. The genius of our Founding Fathers is reflected in the fact that even after hundreds of years the Constitution applies to life today. But they never expected or anticipated the degree of corruption & immorality that we are facing today. In their day a man's word was as good as a written contract & honor was highly valued. Under that assumption they wrote our Constitution so it would protect everyone' rights. Unfortunately our enemies are also protected while they diligently take advantage to tear our country & eventually the very same Constitution that gave them the freedoms they currently enjoy.
Today the Left is already trying to modify our Constitution. They want to eliminate the Electoral College, change the number of judges in our Supreme Court & remove the 2nd Amendment. This was unheard of just a few years ago so there's disturbingly strong evidence that a very bad process is already underway.

Click to expand...

But it is a process enshrined in the Constitution itself. If those changes were to pass and be ratified, which they won’t, then the Constitution would be changed and yet just as legitimate. Funny how that works. Now that is the real glory of the document.

entropy said:

Yes, it is called Socialism. Some call Venezuela failed Socialism, in reality it is Socialism in action.

Click to expand...

So explain how the Scandinavian countries do it. How do they have successful economies, successful, far reaching social welfare, and the happiest people on Earth? All considering they live in a deep freeze. Amazing.

Venezuela is not an example of socialism. It is an example of Bizarro Socialism, socialism operated by a dictator for his own benefit. The socialist democracies are quite successful at creating the conditions for general satisfaction in the population.

rpenmanparker said:

So explain how the Scandinavian countries do it. How do they have successful economies, successful, far reaching social welfare, and the happiest people on Earth? All considering they live in a deep freeze. Amazing.

Venezuela is not an example of socialism. It is an example of Bizarro Socialism, socialism operated by a dictator for his own benefit. The socialist democracies are quite successful at creating the conditions for general satisfaction in the population.

Click to expand...

Scandinavian countries ARE NOT socialist, or "democratic socialist," they have free enterprise, just a large welfare state. I don't know if they're "the happiest people on earth," that sounds like silly hyperbole to me. They're certainly nice people.

Socialism is a totalitarian form of government in which the govt. owns the main means of production. Venezuela is absolutly an example of socialism, a hyped up version which accelerates the degradation due to unusually incompetent, overbearing leadership.
I suppose if Chavez or Maduro had been Einsteinian super geniuses the collapse would have happened slower, such as in the former U. S. S. R. But it would still have happened.

Tommygunn said:

Scandinavian countries ARE NOT socialist, or "democratic socialist," they have free enterprise, just a large welfare state. I don't know if they're "the happiest people on earth," that sounds like silly hyperbole to me. They're certainly nice people.

Socialism is a totalitarian form of government in which the govt. owns the main means of production. Venezuela is absolutly an example of socialism, a hyped up version which accelerates the degradation due to unusually incompetent, overbearing leadership.
I suppose if Chavez or Maduro had been Einsteinian super geniuses the collapse would have happened slower, such as in the former U. S. S. R. But it would still have happened.

Click to expand...

Part of what you wrote is incorrect. You are confusing Socialism with Communism. Socialism may feature ownership of the economy by the government, but it is consistent with democracy. You are right about Scandinavia being a social welfare region, not a socialist region. But there was no hyperbole. Polls consistently show life satisfaction highest in Scandinavia.

Everything I wrote is absolutly correct. "Happiness", however, is a subjective term. They may well be a happy people.


But.
They.
Are.
Not.
Socialists.

Tommygunn said:

Everything I wrote is absolutly correct. "Happiness", however, is a subjective term. They may well be a happy people.


But.
They.
Are.
Not.
Socialists.

Click to expand...

See my correction to my post. Let’s call them Social Democrats.

I do not really distinguish between socialism and "democratic socialists."

I have no problem with Scandinavians being happy, or having a high or highest "life satisfaction." I don't wish them to be angry, embittered, in blue funks, or whatever. Your polls may be accurate, that's fine.

But it's still subjective. I know of no ways to clearly objectify happiness quotients. There may be some way to get a general idea; "on a scale of 1 through 10...." sure, but people will still grade it according to their own perceptions.

Remember even the U. S. S. R. had "elections" as Venezuela also did. Even Hitler won an election. Claiming socialism or communism is consistent with democracy is wildly conflationistic!

Tommygunn said:

Scandinavian countries ARE NOT socialist, or "democratic socialist," they have free enterprise, just a large welfare state.

Click to expand...

Every country on earth has a mix of "socialism" and capitalism. We have socialistic features such as the post office, public highways, Social Security, etc. China has a capitalistic business system. The only argument is where exactly to fall on the continuum. Accusing your opponents of "socialism" is really pointless and boring. The real issues have to do with civil liberties and democratic process. These are things that we have (albeit precariously) but that China doesn't have.

Tommygunn said:

I do not really distinguish between socialism and "democratic socialists."

I have no problem with Scandinavians being happy, or having a high or highest "life satisfaction." I don't wish them to be angry, embittered, in blue funks, or whatever. Your polls may be accurate, that's fine.

But it's still subjective. I know of no ways to clearly objectify happiness quotients. There may be some way to get a general idea; "on a scale of 1 through 10...." sure, but people will still grade it according to their own perceptions.

Remember even the U. S. S. R. had "elections" as Venezuela also did. Even Hitler won an election. Claiming socialism or communism is consistent with democracy is wildly conflationistic!

Click to expand...

So we disagree. No problem. I should state that I do not favor Socialism. But Scandinavia is an important point of reference. Healthy economies, good education and health care, etc. and happy citizens. Not too shabby. By the way, in those polls we tend to show much higher levels of anxiety than they do.

rpenmanparker said:

So we disagree. No problem. I should state that I do not favor Socialism. But Scandinavia is an important point of reference. Healthy economies, good education and health care, etc. and happy citizens. Not too shabby. By the way, in those polls we tend to show much higher levels of anxiety than they do.

Click to expand...

Scandinavian countries are also sparsely populated, and in cold climates. Hard to feel an overwhelming press of other people's ideas when you don't see them often. I would also say, that you aren't seeing major innovation and scientific advancments coming from these countries on a whole. Our freedom has brought about more value to the world than any other form of govt would have allowed. In fact our border issues highlight in some ways, how we as a country, just by being here, offer hope for something different if not better, than where they come from.

The USA, for all our problems, is the best place in the world, and we shouldn't try to be like anyone else.

AlexanderA said:

Every country on earth has a mix of "socialism" and capitalism. We have socialistic features such as the post office, public highways, Social Security, etc. China has a capitalistic business system. The only argument is where exactly to fall on the continuum. Accusing your opponents of "socialism" is really pointless and boring. The real issues have to do with civil liberties and democratic process. These are things that we have (albeit precariously) but that China doesn't have.

Click to expand...

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.
As for our highway system/post office, those don't make us partially "socialist." You might as well say those are fascist, since that system allows for private ownership in a dictatorial system.
If you want a very good read on this I'd suggest you locate a book titled AMERICA'S 30 YEARS WAR by Balint Vazsonyi. Vazsonyi was born and raised in eastern europe and has some excellent insights and perspectives on the matter, far more than I could relate here.

adcoch1 said:

Scandinavian countries are also sparsely populated, and in cold climates. Hard to feel an overwhelming press of other people's ideas when you don't see them often. I would also say, that you aren't seeing major innovation and scientific advancments coming from these countries on a whole. Our freedom has brought about more value to the world than any other form of govt would have allowed. In fact our border issues highlight in some ways, how we as a country, just by being here, offer hope for something different if not better, than where they come from.

The USA, for all our problems, is the best place in the world, and we shouldn't try to be like anyone else.

Click to expand...

Your attitude is a recipe for disaster. One is never good enough to justify being complacent. We can learn from others and shouldn’t be so stubborn that we refuse to do so.