Gun Control Discussion 2

[Mother Cocanuts]

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

...

I'm not sure how to take you seriously any more.

It's not about taking me seriously. I don't care how you "take me." It's all about the argument. If you can discredit or refute my argument, then I'm more than willing to engage you. If not, then I don't know what to tell you.

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

This is well put. It expresses the point well: you cannot say that anybody can reasonably predict the future with accuracy.

If it was so easy for Americans to know when they wrote the Second Amendment what guns would soon become, then it stands to reason that we should already know in advance which seemingly normal technology we have now is about to change the world in ways that will leave it unrecognisable in a generation.

 

1 hour ago, The Mance said:

Yeah, I googled the Belton Flintlock expecting to find some sort of early gatling gun type forerunner.  But, nope.  I'm not even sure it counts as a repeater either*, as each firing seems to be one long succession of timed charges, rather than the capacity to fire once, and then fire again and again.

Also, if i was going to suggest that the founders could've had some sort of prescience on the future of arms tech, I might give an example of a design they had some faith in, rather than one deemed too pie in the sky for investment. 

*not an expert

 

eta: Also, the second or third google result for Belton Flintlock was an article entitled "These Guns Dispel The Notion That The Founding Fathers Could Never Have Imagines Modern Assault Rifles".  I'd link it but… Daily Caller.  Just so we're clear where this talking point is coming from.

Like I stated, this is semantic irrelevancy. Advancement is in the nature of human cognition. The fact that they sought to acquire a weapon which was more sophisticated and advanced than their traditional muskets provides a sufficient condition for what they understood. (And if you look at the history of the Machine Gun, you'd see the Belton Flintlock.) If you want to argue the semantics of "automatic" in that there's a huge gap between a predetermined repeated discharge and a... predetermined repeated discharge, then be my guests.

[TrueMetis]

2 hours ago, The Mance said:

Yeah, I googled the Belton Flintlock expecting to find some sort of early gatling gun type forerunner.  But, nope.  I'm not even sure it counts as a repeater either*, as each firing seems to be one long succession of timed charges, rather than the capacity to fire once, and then fire again and again.

Also, if i was going to suggest that the founders could've had some sort of prescience on the future of arms tech, I might give an example of a design they had some faith in, rather than one deemed too pie in the sky for investment. 

*not an expert

 

eta: Also, the second or third google result for Belton Flintlock was an article entitled "These Guns Dispel The Notion That The Founding Fathers Could Never Have Imagines Modern Assault Rifles".  I'd link it but… Daily Caller.  Just so we're clear where this talking point is coming from.

IIRC repeating here just means it can fire more than one shot without reloading.

6 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

That's all semantic irrelevancy.

Not even close.

I'll accept semantic, because this debate very much has to do with language and logic. But it's not irrelevant. After all we know no one really saw the rise of the automatic coming, we have millions of dead during WW1 to prove it. If the founding fathers had actually seen and understood the importance of the automatic weapon they wouldn't have seen your "automatic" flintlock as too expensive to be worth purchasing. Founding fathers who understood the use of the automatic weapon would have taken the entirety of the North American continent at a minimum.

 

27 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Like I stated, this is semantic irrelevancy. Advancement is in the nature of human cognition. The fact that they sought to acquire a weapon which was more sophisticated and advanced than their traditional muskets provides a sufficient condition for what they understood. (And if you look at the history of the Machine Gun, you'd see the Belton Flintlock.) If you want to argue the semantics of "automatic" in that there's a huge gap between a predetermined repeated discharge and a... predetermined repeated discharge, then be my guests.

Except they didn't acquire it, which says they didn't actually think all that much of it. Nobody did, that's why there aren't any surviving examples.

And sure if you look at the history of the machine gun the Belton Flintlock is mentioned, along side the arquebus, but neither are automatic let alone machine guns. If you look up the history of the space shuttle they would rightfully mention the first jet engine and rocket engine aircraft, but those aren't space ships. Any more than the Belton flintlock is an automatic firearm or certainly a machine gun.

Automatic means you hold down the trigger and as long as there is ammo in the chamber it will fire. If your definition is that there is a predetermined repeated discharge than all modern firearms are automatic. Are you seriously going to tell me a revolver is an automatic weapon?

[Darth Richard II]

Haha wait did the guy arguing for a few pages about the exact wording of the 2nd amendment just say " semantic irrelevancy "?

[TrueMetis]

12 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Haha wait did the guy arguing for a few pages about the exact wording of the 2nd amendment just say " semantic irrelevancy "?

Well when he talks about the specific definition of something it's important, when we point out his definition is wrong it's irrelevant. See how that works?

[Darth Richard II]

17 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Well when he talks about the specific definition of something it's important, when we point out his definition is wrong it's irrelevant. See how that works?

Oh I am well aware of his fuckery, it just struck me as more pathetic than usual.

[Mother Cocanuts]

20 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

IIRC repeating here just means it can fire more than one shot without reloading.

 

20 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I'll accept semantic, because this debate very much has to do with language and logic. But it's not irrelevant. After all we know no one really saw the rise of the automatic coming, we have millions of dead during WW1 to prove it. If the founding fathers had actually seen and understood the importance of the automatic weapon they wouldn't have seen your "automatic" flintlock as too expensive to be worth purchasing. Founding fathers who understood the use of the automatic weapon would have taken the entirety of the North American continent at a minimum.

I'm not criticizing that it's semantic; I'm criticizing that it's semantically irrelevant. And like Yukle you're just speculating--you have no idea the extent of the constraints the U.S. had that prevented them from conquering all of North American Continent. And money was indeed a constraint. Unlike today, the government can't just print fake money.

20 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

 

Except they didn't acquire it, which says they didn't actually think all that much of it. Nobody did, that's why there aren't any surviving examples.

Read what I stated again. I never said they acquired it. I said that they sought to acquire it.

20 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

And sure if you look at the history of the machine gun the Belton Flintlock is mentioned, along side the arquebus, but neither are automatic let alone machine guns. If you look up the history of the space shuttle they would rightfully mention the first jet engine and rocket engine aircraft, but those aren't space ships. Any more than the Belton flintlock is an automatic firearm or certainly a machine gun.

 

20 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Automatic means you hold down the trigger and as long as there is ammo in the chamber it will fire. If your definition is that there is a predetermined repeated discharge than all modern firearms are automatic. Are you seriously going to tell me a revolver is an automatic weapon?

The difference between what you consider automatic and the Belton Flintlock is that an automatic can fire repeatedly until the cartridge is empty; the Flintlock boasted firing as many as 20 balls repeatedly in as little as 5 seconds. We are literally arguing over different rates of fire. This is why I claim the argument semantically irrelevant. The concepts remains the same: fire as many projectiles in as little time as possible. They were limited by their technology, not the concept of automatic.

5 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Well when he talks about the specific definition of something it's important, when we point out his definition is wrong it's irrelevant. See how that works?

Your attempt to make my arguments appear inconsistent is futile. When and where did I argue the definition of something? I was arguing the grammar and meaning of the second amendment--no definition required. Secondly, there's a difference between semantic irrelevancy and grammatically incorrect. As I've shown, the grammatical construction of the second amendment doesn't set "a well regulated militia" as a subordinate; therefore, it cannot be a condition. This pits two concepts against each other: military/public vs. private use of firearms. The semantic debate over "automatic" and "repeated fire" provides no conceptual difference. The only difference it provides is different rates of fire. Now, if you want to maintain that the Flintlock technically isn't an "automatic," that's your prerogative. But you're not arguing anything conceptually different by saying that the founding fathers only understood 20 shots at a time instead of 700. That's quantitative not qualitative.

 

 

[James Arryn]

6 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

It's not about taking me seriously. I don't care how you "take me." It's all about the argument. If you can discredit or refute my argument, then I'm more than willing to engage you. If not, then I don't know what to tell you.

Oh, bullshit.

I mostly stopped engaging with you because, when pressed by an argument, you retreat to false tautologies 'government is X, therefore Y', leave the salient points out of what you quote, reduce to semantics or just plain go tangential. You aren't imo remotely interested in having your mind changed via argument.

I think you see yourself as some streetwise ideological gladiator battling against the naive trendy libtards because it's fun. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you'll list me the issues 'leftist' posters in here have 'argued' sufficiently to change your stance. But somehow I suspect you'll have found all such 'argument' wanting. 

Edit: I disagree with those who label you a troll, I think you sincerely believe the stuff you write and minority views are imo too often dismissed as 'troll', but I don't think your mind is open enough to let in anything significant. 

[TrueMetis]

11 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

 

I'm not criticizing that it's semantic; I'm criticizing that it's semantically irrelevant. And like Yukle you're just speculating--you have no idea the extent of the constraints the U.S. had that prevented them from conquering all of North American Continent. And money was indeed a constraint. Unlike today, the government can't just print fake money.

Then there is nothing in all of the area of history that isn't speculation.

Quote

Read what I stated again. I never said they acquired it. I said that they sought to acquire it.

Governments seek to acquire all sorts of stupid shit. That they sought to acquire it doesn't at all mean they understood the value of something. If they truly understood the value of an automatic weapon they would have acquired it and damn the cost. Hell they probably just would have taken it. Not that it matter because the Belton Flintlock wasn't in any way automatic.

Quote

The difference between what you consider automatic and the Belton Flintlock is that an automatic can fire repeatedly until the cartridge is empty; the Flintlock boasted firing as many as 20 balls repeatedly in as little as 5 seconds. We are literally arguing over different rates of fire. This is why I claim the argument semantically irrelevant. The concepts remains the same: fire as many projectiles in as little time as possible. They were limited by their technology, not the concept of automatic.

No, that's a repeater. A semi-automatic handgun can fire plenty faster than that. People who are good with revolvers can fire them faster than that. Neither are automatics. Automatic means you hold down the trigger and it keeps firing. The fact the it fires somewhat fast (if we go by the faster possible stated time) does not actually matter unless you only have to pull the trigger once. And nothing I can find says it could do that.

[Seli]

On 19/10/2017 at 8:10 AM, Mother Cocanuts said:

Whether you disagree is irrelevant. The Continental Congress in 1777 was in negotiations in acquiring the designs of Joseph Belton's "Belton flintlock," which boasted firing 16 or 20 balls within spans of 5, 10, or 16 seconds. The Continental Congress commissioned Belton to modify 100 muskets, but cancelled it soon after because he was asking for too much money. (This can be found in the Journals of the Continental Congress.) Not only were they aware of what it could do, but they commissioned it. And the Bill of Rights was proposed by James Madison in 1791. It's safe to say that they knew about automatic weapons for 14 years prior to the second amendment.

And again, I don't give any credit to the right to bear arms because the founding fathers conceived it. As I said numerous times, the government doesn't dictate rights; it protects them (allegedly.)

As far as I am aware we don't know if Belton actually ever built one of those guns. And even then one would need to incorporate reload time for a proper analysis of fire-rates.

And of course mere multi-shot weapons were old tech at that time anyway, from the outdated organ guns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribauldequin) to the experimental oddity of the Puckle gun (which I only learned about today, thanks) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun).

Which reminds me, anyone have any idea what happened to last decade's multi-shot wonderweapon Metal Storm?

[maarsen]

6 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Oh, bullshit.

I mostly stopped engaging with you because, when pressed by an argument, you retreat to false tautologies 'government is X, therefore Y', leave the salient points out of what you quote, reduce to semantics or just plain go tangential. You aren't imo remotely interested in having your mind changed via argument.

I think you see yourself as some streetwise ideological gladiator battling against the naive trendy libtards because it's fun. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you'll list me the issues 'leftist' posters in here have 'argued' sufficiently to change your stance. But somehow I suspect you'll have found all such 'argument' wanting. 

Edit: I disagree with those who label you a troll, I think you sincerely believe the stuff you write and minority views are imo too often dismissed as 'troll', but I don't think your mind is open enough to let in anything significant. 

James, you are wasting your time. This poster is trying to live in a universe that does not have the constraints of logic. As for so a called automatic flintlock,  show me a working model, or at the very least a make able patent application.  Vapourware doesn't qualify.

[Mother Cocanuts]

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Oh, bullshit.

I mostly stopped engaging with you because, when pressed by an argument

I don't remember pressing you for an argument.

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

you retreat to false tautologies 'government is X, therefore Y',

This is not a tautology. At best you're describing a non sequitur.

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

leave the salient points out of what you quote, reduce to semantics or just plain go tangential.

Only as it pertained to the meaning of the second amendment have I gone semantic. And if you read the previous pages, you'll see I'm not the one who first proposed this tangent.

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

You aren't imo remotely interested in having your mind changed via argument.

Well, having first hand knowledge of that which interests me, you're wrong.

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I think you see yourself as some streetwise ideological gladiator battling against the naive trendy libtards because it's fun.

You have absolutely no idea how I see myself. You're projecting.

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Maybe I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Maybe you'll list me the issues 'leftist' posters in here have 'argued' sufficiently to change your stance. But somehow I suspect you'll have found all such 'argument' wanting.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

7 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Edit: I disagree with those who label you a troll, I think you sincerely believe the stuff you write and minority views are imo too often dismissed as 'troll', but I don't think your mind is open enough to let in anything significant. 

Good. i agree. The label troll has now become a method of dismissal. (I can't argue against what he states; therefore he's a troll.) A troll is someone who intentionally provokes negative emotions. The problem with labeling me a troll is that it assumes I care to provoke your emotions. I don't care how anyone feels. I've stated this numerous times. I only care about the argument.

This is not my first time on a forum. I know what they attempt to do to minority opinions and I know what they attempt to do to those who are new.

2 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Then there is nothing in all of the area of history that isn't speculation.

Non sequitur. History isn't all speculation. You're the one speculating.

Quote

Governments seek to acquire all sorts of stupid shit. That they sought to acquire it doesn't at all mean they understood the value of something. If they truly understood the value of an automatic weapon they would have acquired it and damn the cost. Hell they probably just would have taken it. Not that it matter because the Belton Flintlock wasn't in any way automatic.

And the speculation continues.

Quote

No, that's a repeater. A semi-automatic handgun can fire plenty faster than that. People who are good with revolvers can fire them faster than that. Neither are automatics. Automatic means you hold down the trigger and it keeps firing. The fact the it fires somewhat fast (if we go by the faster possible stated time) does not actually matter unless you only have to pull the trigger once. And nothing I can find says it could do that.

Once again, this is semantically irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Seli said:

As far as I am aware we don't know if Belton actually ever built one of those guns. And even then one would need to incorporate reload time for a proper analysis of fire-rates.

And of course mere multi-shot weapons were old tech at that time anyway, from the outdated organ guns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribauldequin) to the experimental oddity of the Puckle gun (which I only learned about today, thanks) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun).

Which reminds me, anyone have any idea what happened to last decade's multi-shot wonderweapon Metal Storm?

The crux of the argument is whether the the founding fathers (or the government at the time) could conceive automatic weapons when drafting the second amendment. The Belton Flintlock boasted changing the average rate of a musket from 3 rounds per minute to 20 rounds per five seconds if Belton modified the musket as the congress asked. (This would've been a significant increase in the rate of fire.) The continental congress commissioned this before cancelling it. Not because he was lying but because he was asking for too much of an allowance.

[TrueMetis]

It semantically irrelevant that your example that shows the founding fathers would be able to predict the importance of automatic weapons isn't an automatic weapon. Fuck it I'm done don't know why I bother.

[Mother Cocanuts]

37 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

It semantically irrelevant that your example that shows the founding fathers would be able to predict the importance of automatic weapons isn't an automatic weapon. Fuck it I'm done don't know why I bother.

The only difference between what you call an automatic, or semi-automatic, or "repeater" is the mechanics that contribute to the rate of fire. This provides no conceptual difference. (This is the reason I continue to call your argument semantically irrelevant.) I'm not saying that you're semantically incorrect, but you're attempting to shift the argument from the forethought of advance gun technology to a difference in mechanics between "a repeater" and "an automatic." And if you're seeking to debate the nuances of repeaters, semi-automatics, and automatics as if this provides conceptual significance, then maybe you should be done.

[TerraPrime]

It seems utterly specious to equate the notion of arming citizens who would make up the army to resist invaders and to depose tyrants with the notion of private citizens arming themselves against each other. These gun-related deaths are NOT results of anti-government resistance. 

[Mother Cocanuts]

5 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

It seems utterly specious to equate the notion of arming citizens who would make up the army to resist invaders and to depose tyrants with the notion of private citizens arming themselves against each other. These gun-related deaths are NOT results of anti-government resistance. 

Is this a response to my argument? Or Rippounet's? Perhaps I'm being too presumptuous and you're just making a statement with no particular intended in mind.

[Seli]

50 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

The only difference between what you call an automatic, or semi-automatic, or "repeater" is the mechanics that contribute to the rate of fire. This provides no conceptual difference. (This is the reason I continue to call your argument semantically irrelevant.) I'm not saying that you're semantically incorrect, but you're attempting to shift the argument from the forethought of advance gun technology to a difference in mechanics between "a repeater" and "an automatic." And if you're seeking to debate the nuances of repeaters, semi-automatics, and automatics as if this provides conceptual significance, then maybe you should be done.

 

So since automatics are heavily regulated in the US this implicates that ought to be constitutionally fine for semi-automatic weapons as well? Thanks for this concession

[Mother Cocanuts]

1 minute ago, Seli said:

 

So since automatics are heavily regulated in the US this implicates that ought to be constitutionally fine for semi-automatic weapons as well? Thanks for this concession

. Is that what I said?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 10/19/2017 at 1:28 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

No. It has been since the early 20th century after the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 under Woodrow Wilson's presidency.

Having a central bank makes a State a communist country?  Doesn't that mean the  US, when the Federal Reserve was created, was simply returning to its original condition?  The First and Second "Banks of the United States" were the original US central banks.  They existed in the 18th and 19th Century.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Having a central bank makes a State a communist country?  Doesn't that mean the  US, when the Federal Reserve was created, was simply returning to its original condition?  The First and Second "Banks of the United States" were the original US central banks.  They existed in the 18th and 19th Century.

This is the gun control topic. Don't feed the troll.

 

3 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

. Is that what I said?

Yep, pretty much. Since you started talking about regulating kinds of things and how any regulation is equally fine, you've already conceded either you're opposed or okay with any and all regulation based on mechanical behavior.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

It seems utterly specious to equate the notion of arming citizens who would make up the army to resist invaders and to depose tyrants with the notion of private citizens arming themselves against each other. These gun-related deaths are NOT results of anti-government resistance. 

Very well put.

43 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Having a central bank makes a State a communist country?  Doesn't that mean the  US, when the Federal Reserve was created, was simply returning to its original condition?  The First and Second "Banks of the United States" were the original US central banks.  They existed in the 18th and 19th Century.

Aww look at you Scot, bringing facts and information and logiv into a totally absurd argument.