Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[thegreekdog]

If you refuse and shoot the guy who comes to take your gun away, what happens next? 10 guys come with bigger guns and take your gun away. You form a militia with some like minded people and hole up somewhere. they find out where you are and storm it. Your ragtag bunch of armed civilians somehow defeat the crack military squad. So they just blow you the hell up.

There is no way you win that fight in the end. Period. Therefore having a gun will not protect you.

It depends how popular that militia is.

Is it considered by the nation to be a fringe radical movement? No one cares.
Is it considered by the nation to be a popular movement? People care, it riles up further opposition, and civil war begins (or the government goes bat shit crazy like blowing up its own civilians and the international community gets involved.

I don't want to put words in peoples' mouths, but I think the assumption is that a well-armed militia would not be necessary or adivsable in the United States... ever. I suspect there are a number of rebellions, armed uprisings, defenses, and civil wars where one side relied heavily on well-armed militias.

[Symmetry]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle is the source given for the wiki definition.

Quoting what it actually says is slightly different:

In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition.

I should have checked out your claims more thoroughly, but yes, you're clearly wrong here.

I'm confused as to how that is different than what I provided.

Since I always check your support, here is the full definition from Britannica. I've highlighted some relevant portions for your reference.

assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 300–500 m (1,000–1,600 feet), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic riflesmof the World War II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the United States’ M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3. (See also AK-47; M16 rifle.)

Assault rifles operate by using either propellant gases or blowback forces generated by a fired round to force back the bolt, eject the spent cartridge case, and cock the firing mechanism. A spring then pushes the bolt forward as a fresh cartridge is fed into the chamber, and the gun is fired again. Cartridges are fed into the guns from magazines holding as many as 30 rounds. Many assault rifles have attachments for grenade launchers, sniperscopes, and bayonets.

In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition.

So, if you want to ban the types of weapons that were used in the Newtown killings... would you like to ban all semi-automatic weapons, some semi-automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons that look like assault rifles, or something else?

I think banning assault rifles is a good idea. If you feel like actually talking about that, I'm open. You have my evidence, and you won't provide or reply to evidence showing that assault rifles are both manufactured, and purchasable in the US. i don't get why you're doing this, but I've given you what you asked for.

[CreepersWiener]

Guns don't kill people...Americans kill people!

[thegreekdog]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle is the source given for the wiki definition.

Quoting what it actually says is slightly different:

In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition.

I should have checked out your claims more thoroughly, but yes, you're clearly wrong here.

I'm confused as to how that is different than what I provided.

Since I always check your support, here is the full definition from Britannica. I've highlighted some relevant portions for your reference.

assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 300–500 m (1,000–1,600 feet), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic riflesmof the World War II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the United States’ M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3. (See also AK-47; M16 rifle.)

Assault rifles operate by using either propellant gases or blowback forces generated by a fired round to force back the bolt, eject the spent cartridge case, and cock the firing mechanism. A spring then pushes the bolt forward as a fresh cartridge is fed into the chamber, and the gun is fired again. Cartridges are fed into the guns from magazines holding as many as 30 rounds. Many assault rifles have attachments for grenade launchers, sniperscopes, and bayonets.

In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition.

So, if you want to ban the types of weapons that were used in the Newtown killings... would you like to ban all semi-automatic weapons, some semi-automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons that look like assault rifles, or something else?

I think banning assault rifles is a good idea. If you feel like actually talking about that, I'm open. You have my evidence, and you won't provide or reply to evidence showing that assault rifles are both manufactured, and purchasable in the US. i don't get why you're doing this, but I've given you what you asked for.

Sigh... this again Symmetry?

Let's do a recap with links for ease of reference.

(1) I ask two questions. The first is what firearms should be banned, if any.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994044

(2) Symmetry posts indicating that "guns designed for anything other than self protection and/or hunting should be banned" and indicaes thre is no purpose for an assault rifle.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994057

(3) I respond with a definition of assault rifle as being a rifle that is fully automatic or burst capable. I also indicate that the ATF regulates the ownership of assault rifles and that such rifles are illegal for civilians to own.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994062

(4) Symmetry responds with two links. The first lists assault rifles for sale. The second is the bushmaster website.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994080

(5) I respond with a wikipedia link indicating the definition of assault rifle and its illegality in the US.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994084

(6) Symmetry responds with a link to The Nation article showing various guns that The Nation has labelled as assault rifles.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994096

(7) I respond, using Symmetry's link from (6), showing that the weapons that The Nation has pointed out are all semi-automatic weapons, and therefore, not assault rifles.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994107

(8) Symmetry responds indicating that assault rifles are legal. As support, he shows that the AR-15 is legal.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994120

(9) I point out that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle and that the term "assault rifle" is not used in the wikipedia post describing the AR-15. I indicated that Symmetry is not using the standard definition of "assault rifle" and has not provided a different definition.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=405#p3994197

(10) I respond to Juan Bottom with the same items with which I responded to Symmetry.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=450#p3995288

(11) Symmetry responds that, since the assault rifle is still manufactured and available for sale in the US, my post to Juan is redundant.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=450#p3995301

(12) I reiterate my points above and that I've provided a definition of "assault rifle" and shown that they are illegal in the US. I ask Symmetry for a definition of "assault rifle."

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=450#p3995310

(13) Symmetry indicates that he's already provided a definition for "assault rifle."

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=450#p3995316

(14) I respond that Symmetry provided evidence that Wal-mart sells semi-automatic weapons, which, per the definition I've provided, are not assault rifles.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=450#p3995319

(15) Symmetry responds with a question - "The assault rifle used in the recent school shooting, we're referring to, right?"

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=450#p3995326

(16) I respond, again challenging Symmetry to provide some evidence that assault rifles are legal. I also respond with the wikipedia article regarding the gun used in the Newtown killings. It is a semi-automatic weapon. Under the definition I've given, it is therefore not an assault rifle.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=450#p3995336

(17) Symmtery provides two links. The first is to an LA Times article which refers to the weapon used in the Newtown killings as an assault rifle and then refers to it as a semi-automatic weapon. The second is a Reuters article that talks about the California state pension investment in the company that makes the Bushmaster weapon. The article has nothing in it about assault rifles.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=465#p3995353

(18) I point out, again, that the Bushmaster is not an assault rifle based on the definition I provided (heretofore the only definition of "assault rifle" provided in this thread that was supported by evidence). This negates the use of the LA Times article as persuasive evidence as the article uses the terms "semi-automatic" and "assault rifle" interchangeably and defines neither term. Similarly, the Reuters article does not mention the term "assault rifle." I show that Symmetry has not provided any evidence as to the definition of assault rifle with either link as neither link defines the term.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=465#p3995362

(19) Symmetry reiterates that he's given me evidence from a bunch of opinions - media, legal, and commercial. There were two commercial links and two media links. There was no legal link. None of those links define the term "assault rifle." All of those links refer to the term "semi-automatic weapon." Which, under the definition I provided of "assault rifle" (the only such definition provided with evidentiary backup), is not an assault rifle.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=465#p3995373

(20) I provide additional evidence in the form of links to ATF websites.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=465#p3995404

(21) Symmetry makes irrelevant remarks.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=465#p3995411

(22) I respond with reiteration (again).

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=465#p3995415

(23) Symmetry indicates he would like to have a rational discussion.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=465#p3995419

(24) I ask what subject Symmetry would like to rationally discuss.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=465#p3995419

(25) Symmetry responds with the Britannica definition of the term "assault rifle." This is the first instance in 12 posts in which Symmetry provides evidence supporting a definition of the term "assault rifle." Symmetry does not post the entire definition, however. He merely posts that "in those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition."

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=465#p3995438

(26) I respond by quoting the entire Brittanica definition. The actual definition provides that "assault rifle" is a "miltary firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charges and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." An assault rifle is therefore a weapon that has the capability for automatic fire. These weapons are already banned in the United States.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=465#p3995440

(27) Symmetry ignores my post (26). He instead refers to a defintion of "assault rifle" for which he has provided no evidence.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182634&start=480#p3995457

[crispybits]

If you refuse and shoot the guy who comes to take your gun away, what happens next? 10 guys come with bigger guns and take your gun away. You form a militia with some like minded people and hole up somewhere. they find out where you are and storm it. Your ragtag bunch of armed civilians somehow defeat the crack military squad. So they just blow you the hell up.

There is no way you win that fight in the end. Period. Therefore having a gun will not protect you.

It depends how popular that militia is.

Is it considered by the nation to be a fringe radical movement? No one cares.
Is it considered by the nation to be a popular movement? People care, it riles up further opposition, and civil war begins (or the government goes bat shit crazy like blowing up its own civilians and the international community gets involved.

I don't want to put words in peoples' mouths, but I think the assumption is that a well-armed militia would not be necessary or adivsable in the United States... ever. I suspect there are a number of rebellions, armed uprisings, defenses, and civil wars where one side relied heavily on well-armed militias.

The assumption is that a well armed militia would not be effective in the United States. The technology gap between civilian weaponry (and surely that's an oxymoron in itself) and military grade weaponry (including intangible weaponry like satellite feeds and propaganda campaigns) is simply too large.

The astounding success of America's regulars during the Gulf War highlights the fact that draftees-who are, as previously noted, better trained and equipped than the typical armed civilian-can no longer effectively confront professional armies, even when the civilians significantly outnumber the regulars. Like the collapse of Argentina's sizeable conscript forces in the face of Britain's highly-regarded professionals during the 1982 Falklands War, the crushing of Iraq's huge and well-armed conscript army demonstrates that the actual fighting of modem war is too sophisticated for anyone but the full-time professional to master.

The dismal combat record of amateur soldiers in recent clashes with professional militaries illustrates that warfare has changed fundamentally since the Second Amendment was drafted. When the Framers considered using armed civilians to confront a despotic standing army, they were living "in an age when the weapon likely to be found in private hands, the single shot musket or pistol, did not differ considerably from its military counterpart." Even more important was the way in which the Framers conceived of using the masses of civilians. Presaging the "nation at arms" strategy of the Napoleonic era, the Framers assumed that the military principle of mass would negate any deficiencies in quality. They believed that fire from masses of militiamen would overwhelm the arguably more accurate shooting of smaller numbers of regular forces. Modem technology has changed that equation. Military historian John Keegan maintains that "high technology weapons make large numbers of soldiers irrelevant."' Since at least the 1920s, America has sought "to substitute firepower for manpower" in the hopes of limiting casualties.' So successful has been the effort to use modem weaponry to leverage the combat power of small numbers of soldiers that Professor Keegan contends that masses of poorly trained combatants now "simply clutter up the battlefield."' According to Keegan, the Framers' concept of mass warfare is obsolete:

Indeed, when one looks back over the era of mass warfare, what is striking is how short it was-lasting only from the French Revolution to the end of the Second World War. The idea on which it was based, "every citizen a soldier," looks increasingly far-fetched; in truth, most people in Western societies make bad soldiers.

Even in the late eighteenth century, however, the military value of masses of armed civilians was suspect. General Washington did not believe that armed civilians, even when organized into partially-trained militias, could ever match the combat power of professional militaries:

No militia will ever acquire the habits necessary to resist a regular force ...T he firmness requisite for the real business of fighting is only to be obtained by a constant course of discipline and service. I have never yet been witness to a single instance that can justify a different opinion, and it is most earnestly to be wished that the liberties of America may no longer be trusted, in any material degree, to so precarious a dependence.

Contrary to the inferences of LaPierre and his adherents, twentieth century military history shows that the courage and determination of armed civilians can no longer overcome the discipline, training, and weaponry of professional soldiers. During World War II-the source of much mythology about civilian resistance movements springing to the defense of their homeland after their national armies fell to the Wehrmacht' ° - heroic civilians provided valuable intelligence and occasionally effective sabotage when acting in support of conventional allied forces. But when the guerrillas bore arms directly against the troops of the Third Reich, the military effectiveness of armed civilians typically ranged from "slight" to "disastrous." One expert notes that "bravery did not compensate for lack of heavy weapons and inadequate training against German regulars."

There was no shortage of bravery when over a million courageous citizens of Warsaw, Poland, revolted against Nazi tyranny in 1944. The German Army,- despite being drained by five years of war, was nevertheless able to crush the uprising, killing over 215,000 Polish civilians and Underground Army members in the process."' Although some partisan groups
elsewhere in Europe and Russia were able to avoid destruction by retreating to remote forests and mountains, none succeeded in overthrowing Nazi rule.'

Advocates who insist that the Second Amendment is still a viable check on tyranny often suggest that lightly-armed civilians could defeat modem armies by mounting a guerrilla war, selectively pointing to various twentieth century conflicts as evidence of the same." In reality, however, no insurgents armed only with the sort of personal weapons contemplated by the Second Amendment have prevailed, in a military sense, over any authentically modem army.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vie ... cholarship

Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment
Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF

[thegreekdog]

If you refuse and shoot the guy who comes to take your gun away, what happens next? 10 guys come with bigger guns and take your gun away. You form a militia with some like minded people and hole up somewhere. they find out where you are and storm it. Your ragtag bunch of armed civilians somehow defeat the crack military squad. So they just blow you the hell up.

There is no way you win that fight in the end. Period. Therefore having a gun will not protect you.

It depends how popular that militia is.

Is it considered by the nation to be a fringe radical movement? No one cares.
Is it considered by the nation to be a popular movement? People care, it riles up further opposition, and civil war begins (or the government goes bat shit crazy like blowing up its own civilians and the international community gets involved.

I don't want to put words in peoples' mouths, but I think the assumption is that a well-armed militia would not be necessary or adivsable in the United States... ever. I suspect there are a number of rebellions, armed uprisings, defenses, and civil wars where one side relied heavily on well-armed militias.

The assumption is that a well armed militia would not be effective in the United States. The technology gap between civilian weaponry (and surely that's an oxymoron in itself) and military grade weaponry (including intangible weaponry like satellite feeds and propaganda campaigns) is simply too large.

The astounding success of America's regulars during the Gulf War highlights the fact that draftees-who are, as previously noted, better trained and equipped than the typical armed civilian-can no longer effectively confront professional armies, even when the civilians significantly outnumber the regulars. Like the collapse of Argentina's sizeable conscript forces in the face of Britain's highly-regarded professionals during the 1982 Falklands War, the crushing of Iraq's huge and well-armed conscript army demonstrates that the actual fighting of modem war is too sophisticated for anyone but the full-time professional to master.

The dismal combat record of amateur soldiers in recent clashes with professional militaries illustrates that warfare has changed fundamentally since the Second Amendment was drafted. When the Framers considered using armed civilians to confront a despotic standing army, they were living "in an age when the weapon likely to be found in private hands, the single shot musket or pistol, did not differ considerably from its military counterpart." Even more important was the way in which the Framers conceived of using the masses of civilians. Presaging the "nation at arms" strategy of the Napoleonic era, the Framers assumed that the military principle of mass would negate any deficiencies in quality. They believed that fire from masses of militiamen would overwhelm the arguably more accurate shooting of smaller numbers of regular forces. Modem technology has changed that equation. Military historian John Keegan maintains that "high technology weapons make large numbers of soldiers irrelevant."' Since at least the 1920s, America has sought "to substitute firepower for manpower" in the hopes of limiting casualties.' So successful has been the effort to use modem weaponry to leverage the combat power of small numbers of soldiers that Professor Keegan contends that masses of poorly trained combatants now "simply clutter up the battlefield."' According to Keegan, the Framers' concept of mass warfare is obsolete:

Indeed, when one looks back over the era of mass warfare, what is striking is how short it was-lasting only from the French Revolution to the end of the Second World War. The idea on which it was based, "every citizen a soldier," looks increasingly far-fetched; in truth, most people in Western societies make bad soldiers.

Even in the late eighteenth century, however, the military value of masses of armed civilians was suspect. General Washington did not believe that armed civilians, even when organized into partially-trained militias, could ever match the combat power of professional militaries:

No militia will ever acquire the habits necessary to resist a regular force ...T he firmness requisite for the real business of fighting is only to be obtained by a constant course of discipline and service. I have never yet been witness to a single instance that can justify a different opinion, and it is most earnestly to be wished that the liberties of America may no longer be trusted, in any material degree, to so precarious a dependence.

Contrary to the inferences of LaPierre and his adherents, twentieth century military history shows that the courage and determination of armed civilians can no longer overcome the discipline, training, and weaponry of professional soldiers. During World War II-the source of much mythology about civilian resistance movements springing to the defense of their homeland after their national armies fell to the Wehrmacht' ° - heroic civilians provided valuable intelligence and occasionally effective sabotage when acting in support of conventional allied forces. But when the guerrillas bore arms directly against the troops of the Third Reich, the military effectiveness of armed civilians typically ranged from "slight" to "disastrous." One expert notes that "bravery did not compensate for lack of heavy weapons and inadequate training against German regulars."

There was no shortage of bravery when over a million courageous citizens of Warsaw, Poland, revolted against Nazi tyranny in 1944. The German Army,- despite being drained by five years of war, was nevertheless able to crush the uprising, killing over 215,000 Polish civilians and Underground Army members in the process."' Although some partisan groups
elsewhere in Europe and Russia were able to avoid destruction by retreating to remote forests and mountains, none succeeded in overthrowing Nazi rule.'

Advocates who insist that the Second Amendment is still a viable check on tyranny often suggest that lightly-armed civilians could defeat modem armies by mounting a guerrilla war, selectively pointing to various twentieth century conflicts as evidence of the same." In reality, however, no insurgents armed only with the sort of personal weapons contemplated by the Second Amendment have prevailed, in a military sense, over any authentically modem army.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vie ... cholarship

Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment
Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF

I don't disagree with that.

My point is that in the event there is a civil war, will it be fought between civilians and government or between two factions of government with civilian support? I don't anticipate a situation where the entirety of the US military would be in a position to take on a large group of civilians.

[Symmetry]

Well this is fun for all involved. I'm not sure if you're appealing to your invisible jury again TGD, or talking to me.

i think your biggest weakness is that semi-automatic assault rifles are still assault rifles, legally speaking, and commercially. Indeed the definition you choose to rely on says that simply making an assault rifle seni-automatic makes it a semi-automatic assault rifle,

In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition.

That would be the definition you're relying on. I could go on, but frankly, i'd like to appeal to my own invisible jury and ask if it's worth the bother.

Members of the invisible court, should I bother?

[crispybits]

In the event of civil war, then whichever side gets more of the highly trained and insanely well equipped army will win. Only in the event of the army being split down the middle would civilian power be decisive. And he likelihood of that happening is almost non-existent. The chain of command might suffer a few cracks and lose a few splinter groups here and there, but the way they are trained means that the body of the army will go wherever the head tells it to.

[thegreekdog]

In the event of civil war, then whichever side gets more of the highly trained and insanely well equipped army will win. Only in the event of the army being split down the middle would civilian power be decisive. And he likelihood of that happening is almost non-existent. The chain of command might suffer a few cracks and lose a few splinter groups here and there, but the way they are trained means that the body of the army will go wherever the head tells it to.

I don't think that's true. Witness, for example, the Vietnam conflict, the Iraq war, the recent "Arab spring" developments.

[thegreekdog]

Well this is fun for all involved. I'm not sure if you're appealing to your invisible jury again TGD, or talking to me.

i think your biggest weakness is that semi-automatic assault rifles are still assault rifles, legally speaking, and commercially. Indeed the definition you choose to rely on says that simply making an assault rifle seni-automatic makes it a semi-automatic assault rifle,

In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition.

That would be the definition you're relying on. I could go on, but frankly, i'd like to appeal to my own invisible jury and ask if it's worth the bother.

Members of the invisible court, should I bother?

I think your biggest weakness is the pigheaded refusal to admit that you're wrong about something. Admittedly, it takes a mature person to do that, although it should not take a mature person confronted with reams of evidence and offering none of their own to reach a conclusion that they are wrong.

That quoted language you've pulled from Britannica online is actually not the definition. The definition of "assault rifle" from Britannica online is the language I've quoted, which states, specifically, that an assault rifle is "a military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." The AR-15 and the Bushmaster rifle used by the Newtown killer are not military firearms and are not able to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Therefore, they are not assault rifles based on the definitions of three sources: Britannica online, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Wikipedia. As I've demonstrated through the ATF website and Wikipedia, assault rifles are banned for sale in the United States.

Your desire to ban assault rifles is misplaced given that such weapons have been banned in the United States since 1986.

Would you like to ban all semi-automatic rifles, no semi-automatic rifles, or some semi-automatic rifles? If the last, which ones would you like to ban?

[crispybits]

In the event of civil war, then whichever side gets more of the highly trained and insanely well equipped army will win. Only in the event of the army being split down the middle would civilian power be decisive. And he likelihood of that happening is almost non-existent. The chain of command might suffer a few cracks and lose a few splinter groups here and there, but the way they are trained means that the body of the army will go wherever the head tells it to.

I don't think that's true. Witness, for example, the Vietnam conflict, the Iraq war, the recent "Arab spring" developments.

Vietnam I know next to nothing about so I won't comment

Iraq? The Iraqi army fought against the Americans. I don't remember seeing any stories of them siding with the invaders (and definitely not in any scale).

In the arab spring the armies were extensively used to try and put down the uprisings. In Libya, for example, it was only the intervention of outside influences when more advanced nations chipped in with air strikes that saved the rebllion from failing in a spectacularly bloody way. In Syria, where there was no such western intervention, the uprising was crushed and is now subdued.

[thegreekdog]

In the event of civil war, then whichever side gets more of the highly trained and insanely well equipped army will win. Only in the event of the army being split down the middle would civilian power be decisive. And he likelihood of that happening is almost non-existent. The chain of command might suffer a few cracks and lose a few splinter groups here and there, but the way they are trained means that the body of the army will go wherever the head tells it to.

I don't think that's true. Witness, for example, the Vietnam conflict, the Iraq war, the recent "Arab spring" developments.

Vietnam I know next to nothing about so I won't comment

Iraq? The Iraqi army fought against the Americans. I don't remember seeing any stories of them siding with the invaders (and definitely not in any scale).

In the arab spring the armies were extensively used to try and put down the uprisings. In Libya, for example, it was only the intervention of outside influences when more advanced nations chipped in with air strikes that saved the rebllion from failing in a spectacularly bloody way. In Syria, where there was no such western intervention, the uprising was crushed and is now subdued.

In Iraq, the terrorists (for lack of a better term - they may call themselves militia) were successful in waging war against the US even though the US had tremendous advantage in firepower and training. The terrorists were so successful that after only a few years, there was clamor to pull out in the US.

In the Arab Spring revolutions, the civilians were so successful in waging war against a trained military with superior firepower that they received assistance from foreign nations and ultimately achieved their goals.

[Symmetry]

Well this is fun for all involved. I'm not sure if you're appealing to your invisible jury again TGD, or talking to me.

i think your biggest weakness is that semi-automatic assault rifles are still assault rifles, legally speaking, and commercially. Indeed the definition you choose to rely on says that simply making an assault rifle seni-automatic makes it a semi-automatic assault rifle,

In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition.

That would be the definition you're relying on. I could go on, but frankly, i'd like to appeal to my own invisible jury and ask if it's worth the bother.

Members of the invisible court, should I bother?

I think your biggest weakness is the pigheaded refusal to admit that you're wrong about something. Admittedly, it takes a mature person to do that, although it should not take a mature person confronted with reams of evidence and offering none of their own to reach a conclusion that they are wrong.

That quoted language you've pulled from Britannica online is actually not the definition. The definition of "assault rifle" from Britannica online is the language I've quoted, which states, specifically, that an assault rifle is "a military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." The AR-15 and the Bushmaster rifle used by the Newtown killer are not military firearms and are not able to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Therefore, they are not assault rifles based on the definitions of three sources: Britannica online, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Wikipedia. As I've demonstrated through the ATF website and Wikipedia, assault rifles are banned for sale in the United States.

Your desire to ban assault rifles is misplaced given that such weapons have been banned in the United States since 1986.

Would you like to ban all semi-automatic rifles, no semi-automatic rifles, or some semi-automatic rifles? If the last, which ones would you like to ban?

Just to be clear, that's the definition you provided. I merely quoted the source behind it, If you feel uncomfortable with me quoting the sources you provide for discussion, simply foe me and move on. If it's ok for me to look at the sources you provide, we can discus them.

I've shown you from your own source, that this is an assault rifle, I've provided a legal definition that this is rifle is considered an assault weapon under US law. I've shown you that the assault rifle used is widely purchasable.

I've also said that I think banning assault rifles is a good idea.

Yet you keep returning to this idea that that the assault rifle used in this mass killing wasn't an assault rifle. I don't entirely understand why, as you change your definitions to suit your argument, but it seems like you're going with something along the lines of "it's been modified to be only a semi-automatic assualt rifle".

Is that a fair take?

[crispybits]

You were talking about civil war and where the army goes not al-qaeda style terrorism/freedom-fighting.

In Libya the rebels were about to be wiped out. It was only the fact that Libya is so diplomatically linked with Europe (and by extension the USA) due to geographical proximity that anyone else got involved (see link below). In Syria, where those links didn't exist, the army crushed the rebellion which is still there in spirit but has had all the fight knocked out of it and none of them seem to want another go.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebuda ... ps-advance

With its fighters in retreat, the opposition appealed for foreign intervention.

"The Libyans are being cleansed by Gadhafi?s air force," Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the rebel national council, told the BBC. "We asked for a no-fly zone to be imposed from day one."

"We also want a sea embargo and we urgently need some arms and we also need humanitarian assistance and medicines to be sent to the cities besieged by Gadhafi troops."

In Iraq, how much headway have the terrorist/freedom-fighters made? Has it worked out well for them?

Similarly (and without wanting to derail this into an Israel discussion) how much headway have Palestinian militants made against the highly trained and well equipped Israeli army? Last I checked Israel was still expanding it's land claims....

[thegreekdog]

Well this is fun for all involved. I'm not sure if you're appealing to your invisible jury again TGD, or talking to me.

i think your biggest weakness is that semi-automatic assault rifles are still assault rifles, legally speaking, and commercially. Indeed the definition you choose to rely on says that simply making an assault rifle seni-automatic makes it a semi-automatic assault rifle,

In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition.

That would be the definition you're relying on. I could go on, but frankly, i'd like to appeal to my own invisible jury and ask if it's worth the bother.

Members of the invisible court, should I bother?

I think your biggest weakness is the pigheaded refusal to admit that you're wrong about something. Admittedly, it takes a mature person to do that, although it should not take a mature person confronted with reams of evidence and offering none of their own to reach a conclusion that they are wrong.

That quoted language you've pulled from Britannica online is actually not the definition. The definition of "assault rifle" from Britannica online is the language I've quoted, which states, specifically, that an assault rifle is "a military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." The AR-15 and the Bushmaster rifle used by the Newtown killer are not military firearms and are not able to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Therefore, they are not assault rifles based on the definitions of three sources: Britannica online, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Wikipedia. As I've demonstrated through the ATF website and Wikipedia, assault rifles are banned for sale in the United States.

Your desire to ban assault rifles is misplaced given that such weapons have been banned in the United States since 1986.

Would you like to ban all semi-automatic rifles, no semi-automatic rifles, or some semi-automatic rifles? If the last, which ones would you like to ban?

Just to be clear, that's the definition you provided. I merely quoted the source behind it, If you feel uncomfortable with me quoting the sources you provide for discussion, simply foe me and move on. If it's ok for me to look at the sources you provide, we can discus them.

I've shown you from your own source, that this is an assault rifle, I've provided a legal definition that this is rifle is considered an assault weapon under US law. I've shown you that the assault rifle used is widely purchasable.

I've also said that I think banning assault rifles is a good idea.

Yet you keep returning to this idea that that the assault rifle used in this mass killing wasn't an assault rifle. I don't entirely understand why, as you change your definitions to suit your argument, but it seems like you're going with something along the lines of "it's been modified to be only a semi-automatic assualt rifle".

Is that a fair take?

That's not really a fair take. Here are the items that don't make sense to me in your post:

(1) I did not provide the definition that you quoted. You provided the link to Britannica. The language you quoted from the link was not the definition. The definition was what I provided which, as indicated above, says "a military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire."

(2) Not only do I feel comfortable with you quoting my sources, I welcome it. Of the sources I've provided, you haven't quoted any of them, so I'm not sure where this idea that I would be uncomfortable comes from. You did not quote Wikipedia. You did not quote the ATF websites. In fact, I would love for you to look at these websites. If you had looked at them in the first place, perhaps this whole discussion could have been avoided.

(3) You have not shown me from any sources, and certainly not my own, that the Bushmaster is an assault rifle. You also provided no legal definitions of any kind. The Bushmaster is considered an "assault weapon" but is not considered an "assault rifle." If you would like to discuss assault weapons, that would be great!

(4) I haven't changed any of my definitions. And I'm not making an argument. I've defined assault rifle using evidence from Wikipedia and the ATF. I've also, recently, used the link you provided (Britannica) as a third definition. All of those definitions define assault rifles as automatic weapons and show that such weapons are banned. This is not something that is an arguable issue.

I think you're getting confused as to what is an assault rifle and what is an assault weapon. This is understandable given, as you've demonstrated, that media outlets like the LA Times and The Nation, are confusing the two terms. While the following is not dispositive, if you care to look at comments you'll see that many people are also pointing out the difference between the term "assault rifle" and "assault weapon."

This is imporant to the overall discussion for two reasons. First, if Congress proposes a bill to ban "assault rifles," the bill will be entirely ineffective since such weapons have been banned since 1986. Second, if Congress proposes a bill similar to the Assault Weapons Ban, I would not support such a ban, mainly because the gun manufacturers worked around the ban to release similar weapons.

[thegreekdog]

You were talking about civil war and where the army goes not al-qaeda style terrorism/freedom-fighting.

In Libya the rebels were about to be wiped out. It was only the fact that Libya is so diplomatically linked with Europe (and by extension the USA) due to geographical proximity that anyone else got involved (see link below). In Syria, where those links didn't exist, the army crushed the rebellion which is still there in spirit but has had all the fight knocked out of it and none of them seem to want another go.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebuda ... ps-advance

With its fighters in retreat, the opposition appealed for foreign intervention.

"The Libyans are being cleansed by Gadhafi?s air force," Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the rebel national council, told the BBC. "We asked for a no-fly zone to be imposed from day one."

"We also want a sea embargo and we urgently need some arms and we also need humanitarian assistance and medicines to be sent to the cities besieged by Gadhafi troops."

In Iraq, how much headway have the terrorist/freedom-fighters made? Has it worked out well for them?

Similarly (and without wanting to derail this into an Israel discussion) how much headway have Palestinian militants made against the highly trained and well equipped Israeli army? Last I checked Israel was still expanding it's land claims....

I would classify the Iraq War and the Libyan and Syrian rebellions as civil wars. Maybe not.

Terrorists/freedom-fighters don't always win, definitely. And I'm not saying that having a well-armed populace is the only key to winning these types of conflicts (foreign intervention is probably THE key). If we look at places like Iraq and Israel/Palestine, foreign intervention is clearly the key component. So I would agree with that side of things.

[crispybits]

Right so we've agreed that insurrection vs government is not a good reason for civilians to own guns then given the advancement of military technology moving towards making strength of numbers and simple firearms more and more obsolete in modern warfare?

[Symmetry]

Well this is fun for all involved. I'm not sure if you're appealing to your invisible jury again TGD, or talking to me.

i think your biggest weakness is that semi-automatic assault rifles are still assault rifles, legally speaking, and commercially. Indeed the definition you choose to rely on says that simply making an assault rifle seni-automatic makes it a semi-automatic assault rifle,

In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition.

That would be the definition you're relying on. I could go on, but frankly, i'd like to appeal to my own invisible jury and ask if it's worth the bother.

Members of the invisible court, should I bother?

I think your biggest weakness is the pigheaded refusal to admit that you're wrong about something. Admittedly, it takes a mature person to do that, although it should not take a mature person confronted with reams of evidence and offering none of their own to reach a conclusion that they are wrong.

That quoted language you've pulled from Britannica online is actually not the definition. The definition of "assault rifle" from Britannica online is the language I've quoted, which states, specifically, that an assault rifle is "a military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." The AR-15 and the Bushmaster rifle used by the Newtown killer are not military firearms and are not able to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Therefore, they are not assault rifles based on the definitions of three sources: Britannica online, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Wikipedia. As I've demonstrated through the ATF website and Wikipedia, assault rifles are banned for sale in the United States.

Your desire to ban assault rifles is misplaced given that such weapons have been banned in the United States since 1986.

Would you like to ban all semi-automatic rifles, no semi-automatic rifles, or some semi-automatic rifles? If the last, which ones would you like to ban?

Just to be clear, that's the definition you provided. I merely quoted the source behind it, If you feel uncomfortable with me quoting the sources you provide for discussion, simply foe me and move on. If it's ok for me to look at the sources you provide, we can discus them.

I've shown you from your own source, that this is an assault rifle, I've provided a legal definition that this is rifle is considered an assault weapon under US law. I've shown you that the assault rifle used is widely purchasable.

I've also said that I think banning assault rifles is a good idea.

Yet you keep returning to this idea that that the assault rifle used in this mass killing wasn't an assault rifle. I don't entirely understand why, as you change your definitions to suit your argument, but it seems like you're going with something along the lines of "it's been modified to be only a semi-automatic assualt rifle".

Is that a fair take?

That's not really a fair take. Here are the items that don't make sense to me in your post:

(1) I did not provide the definition that you quoted. You provided the link to Britannica. The language you quoted from the link was not the definition. The definition was what I provided which, as indicated above, says "a military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire."

(2) Not only do I feel comfortable with you quoting my sources, I welcome it. Of the sources I've provided, you haven't quoted any of them, so I'm not sure where this idea that I would be uncomfortable comes from. You did not quote Wikipedia. You did not quote the ATF websites. In fact, I would love for you to look at these websites. If you had looked at them in the first place, perhaps this whole discussion could have been avoided.

(3) You have not shown me from any sources, and certainly not my own, that the Bushmaster is an assault rifle. You also provided no legal definitions of any kind. The Bushmaster is considered an "assault weapon" but is not considered an "assault rifle." If you would like to discuss assault weapons, that would be great!

(4) I haven't changed any of my definitions. And I'm not making an argument. I've defined assault rifle using evidence from Wikipedia and the ATF. I've also, recently, used the link you provided (Britannica) as a third definition. All of those definitions define assault rifles as automatic weapons and show that such weapons are banned. This is not something that is an arguable issue.

I think you're getting confused as to what is an assault rifle and what is an assault weapon. This is understandable given, as you've demonstrated, that media outlets like the LA Times and The Nation, are confusing the two terms. While the following is not dispositive, if you care to look at comments you'll see that many people are also pointing out the difference between the term "assault rifle" and "assault weapon."

This is imporant to the overall discussion for two reasons. First, if Congress proposes a bill to ban "assault rifles," the bill will be entirely ineffective since such weapons have been banned since 1986. Second, if Congress proposes a bill similar to the Assault Weapons Ban, I would not support such a ban, mainly because the gun manufacturers worked around the ban to release similar weapons.

1) is incorrect- the definition was based on the one you gave me, and it was from wiki, I merely quote the source it's from. I've apolagised for not looking into the background of your quote earlier- I do consider it a mistake.

2) I agree that I did not quote the ATF website, although it's also true that I never claimed to have done so. I'm not sure why you think I did that.

3) I've given you sources that describe the AR-15 Bushmaster as an assault rifle both in law and in common parlance,

4) Bullshit

Apologies for the decrease in decorum, but you're really getting rather tiresome.

[spurgistan]

Tunisia has literally the world's least amount of guns per capita, and they had a revolution that' was relatively bloodless (a lack of foreign intervention probably helped with that last bit) and has been rather productive, in case you've been asleep the last two years. So, guns aren't a prerequisite to revolution.

[thegreekdog]

Right so we've agreed that insurrection vs government is not a good reason for civilians to own guns then given the advancement of military technology moving towards making strength of numbers and simple firearms more and more obsolete in modern warfare?

Let's level set here a little bit.

I don't think the advancement of military technology has rendered civilian gun ownership obsolete. There are various historic events where professional militaries have been able to put down civilian rebellions with little trouble without foreign intervention on the rebels' behalf. The question is, therefore, whether civilian weapon ownership was effective ever. And that determination is made based on what you believe "effective" means.

For example, I would think effective means being able to secure foreign intervention to help win (e.g. the American Revolution or the Libyan war). You may think effective means being able to win on its own. If that's your definition of effective, then I agree with you (although, again, I think it's been that way throughout history, with some few exceptions).

[thegreekdog]

1) is incorrect- the definition was based on the one you gave me, and it was from wiki, I merely quote the source it's from. I've apolagised for not looking into the background of your quote earlier- I do consider it a mistake.

2) I agree that I did not quote the ATF website, although it's also true that I never claimed to have done so. I'm not sure why you think I did that.

3) I've given you sources that describe the AR-15 Bushmaster as an assault rifle both in law and in common parlance,

4) Bullshit

(5) Apologies for the decrease in decorum, but you're really getting rather tiresome.

Are you drunk or something?

(2) I never thought that you quoted the ATF website. What led you to believe that I thought that? I want you to read the ATF websites.

(3) You've given me no sources that describe the Bushmaster as an assault rifle under the law. If there was a source that defined the Bushmaster as an assault rifle under the law, IT WOULD BE FUCKING BANNED! I don't know what you mean by common parlance, but if we're talking about the LA Times and The Nation, then fine... common parlance it is. Except that any law that bans "assault rifles" is not going to be using common parlance. It's going to be using legal definitions.

(4) Okay. Find me where I changed my definition of "assault rifle" in this thread. Answer - It's never changed.

(5) Yeah, you tend to do that when you know you're wrong. So no worries on my end.

(6) Did you even read the last paragraph of my last post?

[crispybits]

Right so we've agreed that insurrection vs government is not a good reason for civilians to own guns then given the advancement of military technology moving towards making strength of numbers and simple firearms more and more obsolete in modern warfare?

Let's level set here a little bit.

I don't think the advancement of military technology has rendered civilian gun ownership obsolete. There are various historic events where professional militaries have been able to put down civilian rebellions with little trouble without foreign intervention on the rebels' behalf. The question is, therefore, whether civilian weapon ownership was effective ever. And that determination is made based on what you believe "effective" means.

For example, I would think effective means being able to secure foreign intervention to help win (e.g. the American Revolution or the Libyan war). You may think effective means being able to win on its own. If that's your definition of effective, then I agree with you (although, again, I think it's been that way throughout history, with some few exceptions).

Can you provide an argument why the rebels guns in Lybia (because it's the easiest example to hand, though you are welcoome to pick another) was the means to securing foreign intervention?

I would argue that the guns were irrelevant, and it was the close social and economic ties with developed countries with up to date military capacity that were the reason for the intervention. It is no coincidence that France, with a huge Lybian immigrant population (relative to other immigrant populations, not to the native French), was at the forefront of galvanising western involvement in that conflict.

If it was the simple fact that the rebels had guns, why didn't the western block get involved in other rebellions, such as the one that very nearly got going in Saudi Arabia before being crushed by police and military forces (Saudi Arabia is the country with the 6th highest gun ownership per capita according to wikipedia, well over double Lybia)?

Edit - also worth asking why the rebellion in Saudi Arabia, with the highest gun ownership in that area, was also one of the least long-lived or successful. If civilian guns are a significant relevant factor that should have been one of the most successful.

[Symmetry]

As a kind of final reply, given that TGD has me running through hoops on this, invisible jury, here is the the ATF's site, complete with desrciption of a semi-automatic assault rifle, and the tranfer tax they require for purchasing one.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

AK47 Assault Rifle


Classification
Machinegun
Distinctive Characteristics
Selective fire weapon. May be encountered with or without bayonet, with wooden stock or folding metal stock. Used by Soviet Bloc countries and may be designated also as AKM, TYPE 56 (China), TYPE (58 N Korea), MPIKM E Germ., or RPK, TARIQ (IRAQ) depending on the country of origin.

Special Note
Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported s and are NOT classified as machine guns.

Rate of Transfer Tax
$200.00

So yes, once again, assault rifles are purchasable in the US, this time according to the ATF, even when they're semi-automatic.

[thegreekdog]

As a kind of final reply, given that TGD has me running through hoops on this, invisible jury, here is the the ATF's site, complete with desrciption of a semi-automatic assault rifle, and the tranfer tax they require for purchasing one.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

AK47 Assault Rifle


Classification
Machinegun
Distinctive Characteristics
Selective fire weapon. May be encountered with or without bayonet, with wooden stock or folding metal stock. Used by Soviet Bloc countries and may be designated also as AKM, TYPE 56 (China), TYPE (58 N Korea), MPIKM E Germ., or RPK, TARIQ (IRAQ) depending on the country of origin.

Special Note
Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported s and are NOT classified as machine guns.

Rate of Transfer Tax
$200.00

So yes, once again, assault rifles are purchasable in the US, this time according to the ATF, even when they're semi-automatic.

I'm going to miss you after this final reply.

Anyway, I don't see where it refers to the AK-47 as an assault rifle. I do see where it says "Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported and are NOT classified as machine guns." I wonder why the ATF used the words "commercial" and "semi-automatic" and then used a capitalized "NOT" before "classified as machine guns?"

I wish you well, Symmetry, in your efforts to convince the US government to ban assault rifles considering they are already banned.

[Symmetry]

As a kind of final reply, given that TGD has me running through hoops on this, invisible jury, here is the the ATF's site, complete with desrciption of a semi-automatic assault rifle, and the tranfer tax they require for purchasing one.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html

AK47 Assault Rifle


Classification
Machinegun
Distinctive Characteristics
Selective fire weapon. May be encountered with or without bayonet, with wooden stock or folding metal stock. Used by Soviet Bloc countries and may be designated also as AKM, TYPE 56 (China), TYPE (58 N Korea), MPIKM E Germ., or RPK, TARIQ (IRAQ) depending on the country of origin.

Special Note
Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported s and are NOT classified as machine guns.

Rate of Transfer Tax
$200.00

So yes, once again, assault rifles are purchasable in the US, this time according to the ATF, even when they're semi-automatic.

I'm going to miss you after this final reply.

Anyway, I don't see where it refers to the AK-47 as an assault rifle. I do see where it says "Commercial semi-automatic variations are currently being imported and are NOT classified as machine guns." I wonder why the ATF used the words "commercial" and "semi-automatic" and then used a capitalized "NOT" before "classified as machine guns?"

I wish you well, Symmetry, in your efforts to convince the US government to ban assault rifles considering they are already banned.

Thanks, but the clue is in the ATF's description: "AK47 Asault Rifle".