Nitram vs. Shep Gun debate From Labor day thread

[MKSheppard]

To my knowledge, the second amendment's not been violated in spirit, and you have to do legalese wordplay to make it violated in letter. So why would they defend it? Oh, I forgot, because the NRA says they should.

Then why have they not fought the 1934 NFA act? If I recall correctly, the
government lied on the original Supreme Court proceedings by saying that
sawn-off shotguns were not military arms, when in reality they had been
used in the trenches in WWI.

[SirNitram]

To my knowledge, the second amendment's not been violated in spirit, and you have to do legalese wordplay to make it violated in letter. So why would they defend it? Oh, I forgot, because the NRA says they should.

Then why have they not fought the 1934 NFA act? If I recall correctly, the
government lied on the original Supreme Court proceedings by saying that
sawn-off shotguns were not military arms, when in reality they had been
used in the trenches in WWI.

So, if a militia of moonshiners can't have a sawed off(I will, of course, point out the ridiculousness of citing an example twenty years prior to the case is pure nonsense; though you certainly vehemently claim sawed offs were in later wars.. Why did that take a while to get out, I wonder?), all other gun control is nonsense. Do you know 'leap in logic'?

[MKSheppard]

So, if a militia of moonshiners can't have a sawed off(I will, of course, point out the ridiculousness of citing an example twenty years prior to the case is pure nonsense; though you certainly vehemently claim sawed offs were in later wars.. Why did that take a while to get out, I wonder?)

Never argue with a gun nut on minutaue.

http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/dir5/cmbtshtg.txt

WINCHESTER MODEL 12

First appearing in 20 gauge in 1912, the Model 12 helped fill the Army's
order for nearly 20,000 Winchester trench guns in 1918. However, at the
onset of WWII, Model 12 trench and riot guns were again called to service.

During this conflict, more than 80,000 guns were ordered by the U.S.
Government, and best estimates show that 6,000-plus were outfitted as full blown trench guns.

The Model 12 remained the preferred standard-issue military shotgun well
into the 1960s. The guns served with distinction in Vietnam and were
eventually replaced by Remington M870s and Winchester Model 1200s.

[SirNitram]

So, if a militia of moonshiners can't have a sawed off(I will, of course, point out the ridiculousness of citing an example twenty years prior to the case is pure nonsense; though you certainly vehemently claim sawed offs were in later wars.. Why did that take a while to get out, I wonder?)

Never argue with a gun nut on minutaue.

http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/dir5/cmbtshtg.txt<Snip section on a trench gun>

And still you don't explain why you only mention the use of sawed off's in WWI, when you claimed in private they were used in later wars and even up to today. And still you cling to the leap in logic that is 'If this argument is no good, all gun control is no good'.

[MKSheppard]

And still you don't explain why you only mention the use of sawed off's in WWI, when you claimed in private they were used in later wars and even up to today.

That's because at the time in 1939, WWI was the first real war that
had used Sawn Offs extensively, and the US Supreme Court Ruled
that:

The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

They're essentially saying that since a sawn off shotgun (aka Trenchgun),
has no appreciable military use, the 2nd Amendment does not gurantee
the right to own it. Of course, the government conviently forgot to tell
the judges that we had used them extensively in WWI (the Germans
even filed a protest that we violated the Geneva Convention by their
use), and that they were still part of the US Army's TO&E. Their services
in later wars came AFTER the ruling.

And still you cling to the leap in logic that is 'If this argument is no good, all gun control is no good'.

That's because Gun Control in America is based on a legal pyramid consisting
of the 1934 NFA as the base, with the 1968 Gun Control Act as the Middle,
and the 1994 Brady Bill as the Cap.

If you whack out the NFA, then everything collapses because Every
Gun Law passed in the United States has been an amendment of PREVIOUS gun laws. The 1968 Gun Control Act Amended the 1934
National Firearms act, while the 1994 Brady Bill amended in turn
the 1968 GCA.

[SirNitram]

And still you don't explain why you only mention the use of sawed off's in WWI, when you claimed in private they were used in later wars and even up to today.

That's because at the time in 1939, WWI was the first real war that
had used Sawn Offs extensively, and the US Supreme Court Ruled
that:

The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

They're essentially saying that since a sawn off shotgun (aka Trenchgun),
has no appreciable military use, the 2nd Amendment does not gurantee
the right to own it. Of course, the government conviently forgot to tell
the judges that we had used them extensively in WWI (the Germans
even filed a protest that we violated the Geneva Convention by their
use), and that they were still part of the US Army's TO&E. Their services
in later wars came AFTER the ruling.

So, judges rule logically, the government breaks the law, and you then claim gun control is bunk. It'd be more logical to just say the government needs to comply with it's own laws; but you, of course, need to twist this into the idea that gun control is bad.

And still you cling to the leap in logic that is 'If this argument is no good, all gun control is no good'.

That's because Gun Control in America is based on a legal pyramid consisting
of the 1934 NFA as the base, with the 1968 Gun Control Act as the Middle,
and the 1994 Brady Bill as the Cap.

Wow, we start from point A and get to point Z. The government was in violation of one part(Or, more accurately, the judge was not given a full briefing on the uses of shotguns and their use in war), and so you claim the rest must fall without a single part.

If you whack out the NFA, then everything collapses because Every
Gun Law passed in the United States has been an amendment of PREVIOUS gun laws. The 1968 Gun Control Act Amended the 1934
National Firearms act, while the 1994 Brady Bill amended in turn
the 1968 GCA.

False Dilemma.

[MKSheppard]

I'm not even going to continue to debate some moron who doesn't
realize the basic principles of law:

If a law is invalidated/struck down by a court, than ANYTHING based upon
that law is called into question and is possibly invalid too.

[SirNitram]

I'm not even going to continue to debate some moron who doesn't
realize the basic principles of law:

If a law is invalidated/struck down by a court, than ANYTHING based upon
that law is called into question and is possibly invalid too.

So, the entirity of it must be struck down because the government didn't obey it?(Here's a hint: The US government using what you claim must be identical to a sawed off is not the same as showing it is militarily valuable.) Nevermind that you assume the rest of it must fall down. Of course, this is exactly as I predicted earlier in the thread.

[MKSheppard]

(Here's a hint: The US government using what you claim must be identical to a sawed off is not the same as showing it is militarily valuable.)

You're the same genius who claimed that shotguns aren't much use
against tanks, so they must not be of any military value. Newsflash, People
are soft and squishy, and we have yet to invent anything more devastating
than 12-gauge buckshot at close quarters, other than of course, a claymore
mine, but that can't be carried in combat by a soldier.

[SirNitram]

(Here's a hint: The US government using what you claim must be identical to a sawed off is not the same as showing it is militarily valuable.)

You're the same genius who claimed that shotguns aren't much use
against tanks, so they must not be of any military value.

You obsess over my guess at the judge's motivation in a very unhealthy fashion. What makes a sawed off so militarily useful?

Newsflash, People
are soft and squishy, and we have yet to invent anything more devastating
than 12-gauge buckshot at close quarters, other than of course, a claymore
mine, but that can't be carried in combat by a soldier.

So it's useful in close quarters. So is a normal shotgun. So is, IIRC, an SMG.

Now, Shep, how about you try debating honestly: Is NFA simply 'no sawed offs since they aren't useful militarily', or, as I suspect, is it a larger list of weapons banned from use, and what you are quoting is a Judge ruling that a gun can be added to the list because of his knowledge, which, as I myself said, was flawed(You love to omit that, I know, but that's okay).

[Stravo]

Sorry guys but this really needs its own thread at this point.

[MKSheppard]

What makes a sawed off so militarily useful?

Oh fuck this, this is rapidly approaching RayCav levels of stupidity.
I am not here to fucking hold your hand and point out to you
blindingly obvious facts.

Now, Shep, how about you try debating honestly:

No, how about you pull your fucking head out of your fucking ass and
stop making comments that lower the IQs of everyone in the fucking room
by 10 points?

[SirNitram]

What makes a sawed off so militarily useful?

Oh fuck this, this is rapidly approaching RayCav levels of stupidity.
I am not here to fucking hold your hand and point out to you
blindingly obvious facts.

Awwww, poor Shep can't find a quick answer to why having a sawed off is so important when shotguns and SMG's exist.

Now, Shep, how about you try debating honestly:

No, how about you pull your fucking head out of your fucking ass and
stop making comments that lower the IQs of everyone in the fucking room
by 10 points?

Your IQ can't lower by ten points, Shep, there's no such thing as a negative IQ score. So you won't even identify what the NFA is, what a spineless little bitch.

Can someone whose actually capable of being honest and reasonable answer the question of whether Shep is distorting what the NFA is?

[SirNitram]

Sorry guys but this really needs its own thread at this point.

No problem, but Shep seems to be running off, omitting my words the whole way.

[Sea Skimmer]

So it's useful in close quarters. So is a normal shotgun. So is, IIRC, an SMG.

Actually a normal shotgun is too long for close quarters and SMG's have low stopping power.

[Alyeska]

I suppose I could go dig up some information on the NFA.

Shep, might want to hold back for a bit. Your pissing contest with SirNitram isn't going anywhere and neither of you is willing to back down. Same advice to you SirNitram.

[MKSheppard]

Awwww, poor Shep can't find a quick answer to why having a sawed off is so important when shotguns and SMG's exist.

No, it's YOU who is a fucking moron who can't do stuff. I did
enough hand holding for RayCav and I'm not going to hold you hand
and point out what everything is and does.

So you won't even identify what the NFA is, what a spineless little bitch.

How about you just fucking Google it then? I'm not here to hold you hand
like I said not just a few minutes ago. What the fuck is it with people these
days?

[Alyeska]

So it's useful in close quarters. So is a normal shotgun. So is, IIRC, an SMG.

Standard shotguns and SMGs are useful in close combat, but they have their downsides. Your average shotgun has a long fucking barrel and can be just as much a pain to move around as a rifle. Its primary advantage is the round it fires. SMGs are nice because of refire and the size, but they lack stopping power. Sawed off or shotry shotguns are bloody nice because they allow you to easily move the weapon about while weilding a rather powerful weapon.

[SirNitram]

So it's useful in close quarters. So is a normal shotgun. So is, IIRC, an SMG.

Actually a normal shotgun is too long for close quarters and SMG's have low stopping power.

Thank you, Skim. I knew someone could answer the question. Point conceeded that sawed off's are militarily useful.

[Alyeska]

Bah, the NFA is bloody huge.

http://keepandbeararms.com/laws/nfa34.htm

[MKSheppard]

Bah, the NFA is bloody huge.

That's because it's been amended and expanded by all the Gun Control
Bills that have come since (1968 GCA, et al).

Oh yes, and it was declared constitutionally invalid and struck down by
a District Court Judge who ripped the living fuck out of the Government
attorney before it was remanded up to the Supremes.

I'll post a transcript from that court case when I get back from night
classes

[SirNitram]

Bah, the NFA is bloody huge.

http://keepandbeararms.com/laws/nfa34.htm

Yep, it is, but I just finished skimming it. The majority is about the taxation of firearm manufacturers, registration of guns, and the exceptions law usually makes. Interestingly, the only direct, clear spot where it says 'YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT' is Machineguns(Defined in that document as a gun with an automatic firing feature, or readily modifiable into having such).

In other words, Mark's claims that the NFA must be abolished because a judge ruled a sawed off to be under it's bannings is bullshit: The judge was full of it, but his ruling can't be used to overturn the document.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yep, it is, but I just finished skimming it. The majority is about the taxation of firearm manufacturers, registration of guns, and the exceptions law usually makes. Interestingly, the only direct, clear spot where it says 'YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT' is Machineguns(Defined in that document as a gun with an automatic firing feature, or readily modifiable into having such).

Which bans many hundreds of weapons, including types of shotguns, handguns, most every rifle designed since 1945 and a number before that. Quite a fucking lot to say the least. Meanwhile back in 1934 machine guns as so defined came in two types, a very few forms submachine guns which where being heavily used for crime and that where too expensive for anyone but gangsters to afford, and large crew served weapons.

The law is one more example of gun control legislation that was sensible when enacted, yet has been expanded and warped far beyond its original intention. Thus it should be repealed.

[SirNitram]

Yep, it is, but I just finished skimming it. The majority is about the taxation of firearm manufacturers, registration of guns, and the exceptions law usually makes. Interestingly, the only direct, clear spot where it says 'YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT' is Machineguns(Defined in that document as a gun with an automatic firing feature, or readily modifiable into having such).

Which bans many hundreds of weapons, including types of shotguns, handguns, most every rifle designed since 1945 and a number before that. Quite a fucking lot to say the least. Meanwhile back in 1934 machine guns as so defined came in two types, a very few forms submachine guns which where being heavily used for crime and that where too expensive for anyone but gangsters to afford, and large crew served weapons.

True, it is a large amount of weaponry. And I'm sure arguments could be put forth to support full-auto weaponry in civilian hands, though I myself see no reason why one would need one(Sorry, but I can see more reasons why they should be kept out of criminal hands than I can see advantages in civilian hands).

The law is one more example of gun control legislation that was sensible when enacted, yet has been expanded and warped far beyond its original intention. Thus it should be repealed.

I will certainly agree it's a cumbersome, rather silly document now(For instance, there's a vast difference between a gun that can fire a few rapid shots on auto and a 'true' GPMG, and I can see no problem in legalizing some of the slower firing ones). But that's not the same as what Sheppard demands must happen(Strike it from the books and strike all gun control away because of a judge's decision about sawed offs).

[Sea Skimmer]

I will certainly agree it's a cumbersome, rather silly document now(For instance, there's a vast difference between a gun that can fire a few rapid shots on auto and a 'true' GPMG, and I can see no problem in legalizing some of the slower firing ones). But that's not the same as what Sheppard demands must happen(Strike it from the books and strike all gun control away because of a judge's decision about sawed offs).

Many laws have been struck down on technicalities, why exactly shouldn't that be the case here?