Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):
While I tend to agree with the people who support an assault weapons ban, I don't think you guys are winning this debate at all.  You all keep acting as if the burden of proof is on the people who oppose the ban.  It's not.  Trentonjoe just said:

"Owning an M16 so you can walk your dog in a swamp isn't a good enough reason in my opinion."

Fine.  It doesn't have to be.  The 2nd Amendment is a good enough reason NOT to enact a ban.  As I pointed out in the other thread a week ago, the use of the word "infringed" in the amendment says to me that, objectively, any law banning the ownership of weapons by private citizens is, technically, unconstitutional.  The 2nd Amendment isn't the tagline "right to bear arms," it says "shall not be infringed."  An assault weapons ban is absolutely an infringement on access to arms, so in order to enact one you need to carry some burden of proof.  It absolutely is not the other way around.

I would argue that there has never been a major shooting in the United States using an assault weapon which could not be perpetrated reasonably with weapons not banned under any proposed law.  That being said, that doesn't rule it out.  I continue to lean on the example of how easily someone could carry an automatic weapon into Times Square and kill hundreds before being gunned down by police.  MikeT will probably come in like a broken record here and tell me you could do the same thing with a bomb.  It's a stupid example.  Most of the big massacres are NOT long-term planned - some are, but most are not.  Most are perpetrated by either badly depressed to suicidal individuals or deeply disturbed individuals.  In many, probably the vast majority, really, of cases these people would have time to pull out of their extreme depressive cycles before they had finished building a bomb.  Building a bomb big enough to kill hundreds of people takes a lot of time and a lot of money.  Even if they have the money, they may get their meds fixed before they have all the time.  An assault weapons ban makes the potentiality of a massive spontaneous killing far less likely.

@swamphawk in particular - just because I can't give you a specific example of a time in which an assault weapon HAS been used to kill hundreds of people where another gun wouldn't have worked doesn't mean it isn't possible.  That's a stupid argument.  Why wait until it happens to try to stop it from happening?  Why don't we just let cracks grow in the Hoover Dam until it starts breaking and flooding people because until we actually see leakage we don't have a problem?

So you support the private ownership of RPGs, grenades, and landmines. Those wild boars won't stand a chance now!

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Big massacres.   Please list them.

Sandy Hook
Va Tech
Boulder, CO
Aurora, CO

These come to mind.    SH is the only one that wasn't planned.   Or, at least, there's been no evidence that it was.  The other three were painstakingly planned. 

Waiting.   I threw in the Giffords shooing in another post.   No idea if it was planned but he used a 9mm handgun.

I didn't say that.  But I did state in the other thread that, technically speaking, the outlawing of those things, as well as tanks, fighter jets, military drones, etc., is absolutely unconstitutional.  The fallacy in this thread is that the people supporting an assault weapons ban ignore the Constitutional problem and act like what we need to do is weight the benefits vs. the harms of an assault weapon ban.  IE do assault weapons do more harm or good.  In spite of the fact that MikeT has actually tried to participate in this ridiculous argument, it's hard to argue the good side of that debate.  Frankly, by engaging in it he's really playing into the hands of the pro-ban people.  The reality is that it should be a harms vs. harms debate - net harms of assault weapons in society vs. the inherent harms of violating the Constitution without amending it to legalize your actions.  There is certainly a bad precedent created by something like an assault weapons ban, and while slippery slope arguments are weak they may apply here.  Not inherently as a slippery slope argument.  But if the Supreme Court continues to allow assault weapon bans, there is now a growing legal precedent for allowing the government to restrict gun purchases or ownership.  Slippery  slope arguments are fallacies, bad_luck is absolutely right about that.  But legal precedents and their role in future court decisions make something very similar to a slippery slope argument a legitimate concern in this case.

Are you going to list the mass shootings that weren't planned or just ramble on like you normally do?    If you're gonna make a statement, back it up just a little.

It all depends on interpretation.

"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."

Does this infer "any and all arms", or just "some sort of arms".

If you're allowed to bear arms A, B and C but not arms X, Y or Z, have your Second Amendment rights been infringed upon?

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2013 3:32:00 PM (view original):
I didn't say that.  But I did state in the other thread that, technically speaking, the outlawing of those things, as well as tanks, fighter jets, military drones, etc., is absolutely unconstitutional.  The fallacy in this thread is that the people supporting an assault weapons ban ignore the Constitutional problem and act like what we need to do is weight the benefits vs. the harms of an assault weapon ban.  IE do assault weapons do more harm or good.  In spite of the fact that MikeT has actually tried to participate in this ridiculous argument, it's hard to argue the good side of that debate.  Frankly, by engaging in it he's really playing into the hands of the pro-ban people.  The reality is that it should be a harms vs. harms debate - net harms of assault weapons in society vs. the inherent harms of violating the Constitution without amending it to legalize your actions.  There is certainly a bad precedent created by something like an assault weapons ban, and while slippery slope arguments are weak they may apply here.  Not inherently as a slippery slope argument.  But if the Supreme Court continues to allow assault weapon bans, there is now a growing legal precedent for allowing the government to restrict gun purchases or ownership.  Slippery  slope arguments are fallacies, bad_luck is absolutely right about that.  But legal precedents and their role in future court decisions make something very similar to a slippery slope argument a legitimate concern in this case.

I disagree. I think that banning certain types of weapons doesn't automatically infringe on your right to bear arms. I guess it depends on how broadly the second amendment is interpreted. Your interpretation is much, much broader than that of the Supreme Court (and the public in general).

I think the public in general just thinks the Second Amendment says you have the right to bear arms.  I don't think the word "infringe" is really all that hazy.  I would say the closest analogue in this case is something like "encroach upon."  Any limitation on arms access encroaches upon my right to bear arms.  I fully support all weapons bans currently in existence and would support a further ban on AT LEAST all fully automatic weapons.  But I do think we have to recognize it is an infringement upon Constitutional rights, so we have to tread carefully.

See what I did there?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Are you going to list the mass shootings that weren't planned or just ramble on like you normally do?    If you're gonna make a statement, back it up just a little.

Columbine?

That's a good one for you, highly planned, mostly small arms and explosives, and there was a huge red flag all over the place that nobody bothered to pay attention to.

I'm pretty sure it is perfectly legal to own grenade launchers as well as ground to air missiles like the LAWs Rocket, so long as you pay a "DD" (Dangerous Device) tax.

Is this no longer the case?

You can own a spent M72 if you pay a DD tax, I don't think it's legal to own one that is still live...

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2013 4:10:00 PM (view original):
I think the public in general just thinks the Second Amendment says you have the right to bear arms.  I don't think the word "infringe" is really all that hazy.  I would say the closest analogue in this case is something like "encroach upon."  Any limitation on arms access encroaches upon my right to bear arms.  I fully support all weapons bans currently in existence and would support a further ban on AT LEAST all fully automatic weapons.  But I do think we have to recognize it is an infringement upon Constitutional rights, so we have to tread carefully.

See what I did there?

Is an F-16 fighter jet a weapon? How about a Battleship? Are grenades weapons? Are rocket launchers weapons? Are HCAW weapons? Is a .22 caliber pistol a weapon. Are they all legal to own? The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify which arms you can legally possess just that you have the right to do so. Enter slippery slope!

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Not necessarily. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies for a reason.

Not in this case.   The "objective" is to stop another Sandy Hook.   When the next Sandy Hook happens, and it will if school security isn't addressed, that type of firearm will come under fire.  

You and I both know it.    I'm just willing to say it.

No, it is a fallacy in this case.

It's perfectly possible to ban HCAW without banning handguns. No one is arguing that we should ban all guns. When that happens, you are free to argue against it.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2013 4:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Are you going to list the mass shootings that weren't planned or just ramble on like you normally do?    If you're gonna make a statement, back it up just a little.

Columbine?

That's a good one for you, highly planned, mostly small arms and explosives, and there was a huge red flag all over the place that nobody bothered to pay attention to.

You're the one that said they're seldom planned.   I want to know, other than Sandy Hook, which ones WEREN'T planned.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/22/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/22/2013 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Not necessarily. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies for a reason.

Not in this case.   The "objective" is to stop another Sandy Hook.   When the next Sandy Hook happens, and it will if school security isn't addressed, that type of firearm will come under fire.  

You and I both know it.    I'm just willing to say it.

No, it is a fallacy in this case.

It's perfectly possible to ban HCAW without banning handguns. No one is arguing that we should ban all guns. When that happens, you are free to argue against it.

So I can't argue now?    Shockingly, I thought I was.

It is utterly ridiculous to act like if Sandy Hook had been attacked with a guy bearing 2 shotguns that we'd be having a discussion concerning the "need" to ban HCAW at all.