Pages

Jump to bottom

25 comments

1
No Country For Old Haters  Jun 29, 2016 • 11:31:32am

What’s next? Personal nukes? The cowardly rwnj’s weapon fetish has gotten way out of hand.

2
Great White Snark  Jun 29, 2016 • 11:33:35am

Sounds like a skip shot. Like a thrown rock skipping on a pond. Now unless this is some new hand portable 105mm gun, it has less than nothing to do with the 2nd A., gun rights etc. You guys all know this right? BEARABLE arms?

Gun rights needs sarc tag.

3
wrenchwench  Jun 29, 2016 • 11:39:17am

re: #2 Great White Snark

Sounds like a skip shot. Like a thrown rock skipping on a pond. Now unless this is some new hand portable 105mm gun, it has less than nothing to do with the 2nd A., gun rights etc. You guys all know this right? BEARABLE arms?

Gun rights needs sarc tag.

They are all part of the gun culture. The guy owns a ‘gun range’. He’s part of it, too.

4
Donkey With No Name  Jun 29, 2016 • 11:39:57am

re: #2 Great White Snark

Sounds like a skip shot. Like a thrown rock skipping on a pond. Now unless this is some new hand portable 105mm gun, it has less than nothing to do with the 2nd A., gun rights etc. You guys all know this right? BEARABLE arms?

Gun rights needs sarc tag.

Wait, are you actually claiming that “bear arms” should literally be read as “a single person carrying arms”? Or is that in a sarc tag itself? …confused…

5
FormerDirtDart  Jun 29, 2016 • 11:44:03am

The article says the projectile was 3.5 inches across. 90mm. Possibly a M1/M2/M3 gun

Also, the Raw Story article is two years old…

6
Shiplord Kirel  Jun 29, 2016 • 11:52:41am

re: #5 FormerDirtDart

The article says the projectile was 3.5 inches across. 90mm. Possibly a M1/M2/M3 gun

Also, the Raw Story article is two years old…

The article specifically says “105mm,” which is why I included the 4.1 inch correction. This is obviously a conflict in the facts as presented. The 90MM guns are not howitzers in any case. “105mm” and “howtizer” sound like something the reporter would get from the range (where they would have at least some specific knowledge), while the “3.5 inch” sounds more like a guesstimate by the homeowner or the media.

7
Shiplord Kirel  Jun 29, 2016 • 12:16:53pm

re: #2 Great White Snark

Sounds like a skip shot. Like a thrown rock skipping on a pond. Now unless this is some new hand portable 105mm gun, it has less than nothing to do with the 2nd A., gun rights etc. You guys all know this right? BEARABLE arms?

Gun rights needs sarc tag.

That’s apparently the NRA’s position since they don’t insist on an unlimited right to own artillery. Why, though, should we conflate the NRA’s interpretation of the Second Amendment with “gun rights”? It was not illegal to be shooting the howitzer, so these people were in fact within their statutory rights.

8
Romantic Heretic  Jun 29, 2016 • 12:20:42pm

re: #5 FormerDirtDart

A Facebook friend posted about this incident this morning. If the photo is the weapon in question it is an M116 (Originally designated M1A1) pack howitzer.

That weapon has a five mile range. So the only safe distance, in my opinion, would be five miles plus another mile.

That range owner certainly should have known this.

As far as being available there are far more powerful weapons that can be fired on ranges in America.

Pak-40 German 75mm AT Gun Firing

9
Shiplord Kirel  Jun 29, 2016 • 12:25:57pm

re: #8 Romantic Heretic

A Facebook friend posted about this incident this morning. If the photo is the weapon in question it is an M116 (Originally designated M1A1) pack howitzer.

That weapon has a five mile range. So the only safe distance, in my opinion, would be five miles plus another mile.

That range owner certainly should have known this.

As far as being available there are far more powerful weapons that can be fired on ranges in America.

[Embedded content]

The M-116 is a 75mm weapon, so smaller than any of the figures in the article. Wouldn’t surprise me if the range owner was mistaken, since the 105 is far better known these days. The PaK 40 is actually the same caliber but far more powerful because of its greater muzzle velocity.

10
Aunty Entity Dragon  Jun 29, 2016 • 1:13:56pm

re: #2 Great White Snark

Sounds like a skip shot. Like a thrown rock skipping on a pond. Now unless this is some new hand portable 105mm gun, it has less than nothing to do with the 2nd A., gun rights etc. You guys all know this right? BEARABLE arms?

Gun rights needs sarc tag.

Agree. This was a skip shot.

11
Skip Intro  Jun 29, 2016 • 2:19:46pm

re: #1 No Country For Old Haters

What’s next? Personal nukes? The cowardly rwnj’s weapon fetish has gotten way out of hand.

If the NRA gets its way, yeah.

12
Great White Snark  Jun 29, 2016 • 2:46:27pm

re: #4 Donkey With No Name

A couple decisions clearly limit the 2nd to bearable arms, IOW tanks need not apply. Nor tank guns. Nor nukes. Crew served lasers, all off the table for the 2nd. Has been legally clear since maybe Bonnie And Clyde.

re: #3 wrenchwench

They are all part of the gun culture. The guy owns a ‘gun range’. He’s part of it, too.

I own a gun range. I’m part of the gun culture for 49 years I know the difference between say CCW, full auto guns within the law, and the 2nd. I find myself reminding people on both sides often what means what. What happens is some advocates and some critics both run away from the truth of how many restrictions are solidly in place. Why museums and certain ranges allow people with the Federal and or state paperwork to fire.

It should not be shocking that in certain places relics can run or shoot, and that sometimes things go wrong. Anyone see if the Federal tax stamp etc was in order here?
Heck I could give chapter and verse on what kind of dirt and how deep it is to be for varying conditions at a range. Hint, hard pan desert ain’t it.

13
Decatur Deb  Jun 29, 2016 • 2:50:08pm

Artillery is an organized sport, y’all.

n-ssa.org

14
nines09  Jun 29, 2016 • 4:48:20pm

The only thing that stops a guy with a 75MM howitzer is another guy with a 75MM howitzer.

15
Great White Snark  Jun 29, 2016 • 4:53:32pm

re: #7 Shiplord Kirel

That’s apparently the NRA’s position since they don’t insist on an unlimited right to own artillery. Why, though, should we conflate the NRA’s interpretation of the Second Amendment with “gun rights”? It was not illegal to be shooting the howitzer, so these people were in fact within their statutory rights.

I don’t conflate the NRA (well really ILA) view with anything other than nonsense. And as you see above our most strident critic of guns went there. The extreme view has value to the extreme proponent for gun rights and the most severe critic. “Look what I demand I be allowed to do” on one hand and for the critic, “look what they want”. Reality lives at considerable distance from both of those views.

When I hear gun rights I think the 2nd. beyond that like for CCW or open carry we usually refer to that as a law. Laws that disallow full auto for example, and laws that allow CCW.

16
nines09  Jun 29, 2016 • 4:55:58pm

I suspect that guy who fired that howitzer is going to be saying “Huh? What?” a whole lot more.

17
Donkey With No Name  Jun 29, 2016 • 5:00:25pm

re: #12 Great White Snark

A couple decisions clearly limit the 2nd to bearable arms, IOW tanks need not apply. Nor tank guns. Nor nukes. Crew served lasers, all off the table for the 2nd. Has been legally clear since maybe Bonnie And Clyde.

I know you mean well here, but I really think you read into the jurisprudence and cultural/political activity around the 2nd exactly what you want it to be. (Remember Heller was a 5-4 decision, 217 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights. It was not obvious, and much after Bonnie and Clyde, please.) And anyway your particular “bear arms” wordplay is not relevant - it’s the “common use” aspect of the weapon that Scalia defended, which leads to the illogical and discriminatory situation where clubs and knives are more illegal in some states than handguns, as nobody speaks up for the clubs and knives.

I live in Texas and work in a public university, where we were just forced to accept concealed carry of handguns on campus. Remember concealed carry of any kind in TX wasn’t allowed until 1995! What we see across the country is a sustained campaign to eliminate all kinds of restrictions on firearms whatever - the fact that Scalia said “oh, of course there are limits” is not the slightest bit reassuring because 2nd amendment absolutists are trying to test this in as many ways as possible. If you think there is some process that will approach a “reasonable” solution across the country, may I suggest it would have been the status quo before the 90s, when the NRA went insane?

Do I think people should be able to have guns at home? Sure, if they’re held responsible for what happens. (Shooting lost exchange students outside one’s house is not OK, regardless of how weak one’s piddly xenophobic bladder is.) Do people in dangerous professions need personal protection? Certainly I can see cause. But this is not where the frontier of “gun rights” is many places in the US - rather, it’s “surely I have the right to be a vigilante and chase after someone I don’t like in a location that’s not my house and shoot them dead, and also to have a gun range in my backyard and not be responsible if the backstop doesn’t prevent bullets from hitting my neighbor’s house” - and these people have no interest in your formulation of this issue.

18
Great White Snark  Jun 29, 2016 • 5:12:29pm

re: #17 Donkey With No Name

I know you mean well here, but I really think you read into the jurisprudence and cultural/political activity around the 2nd exactly what you want it to be. (Remember Heller was a 5-4 decision, 217 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights. It was not obvious, and much after Bonnie and Clyde, please.) And anyway your particular “bear arms” wordplay is not relevant - it’s the “common use” aspect of the weapon that Scalia defended, which leads to the illogical and discriminatory situation where clubs and knives are more illegal in some states than handguns, as nobody speaks up for the clubs and knives.

I live in Texas and work in a public university, where we were just forced to accept concealed carry of handguns on campus. Remember concealed carry of any kind in TX wasn’t allowed until 1995! What we see across the country is a sustained campaign to eliminate all kinds of restrictions on firearms whatever - the fact that Scalia said “oh, of course there are limits” is not the slightest bit reassuring because 2nd amendment absolutists are trying to test this in as many ways as possible. If you think there is some process that will approach a “reasonable” solution across the country, may I suggest it would have been the status quo before the 90s, when the NRA went insane?

Do I think people should be able to have guns at home? Sure, if they’re held responsible for what happens. (Shooting lost exchange students outside one’s house is not OK, regardless of how weak one’s piddly xenophobic bladder is.) Do people in dangerous professions need personal protection? Certainly I can see cause. But this is not where the frontier of “gun rights” is many places in the US - rather, it’s “surely I have the right to be a vigilante and chase after someone I don’t like in a location that’s not my house and shoot them dead, and also to have a gun range in my backyard and not be responsible if the backstop doesn’t prevent bullets from hitting my neighbor’s house” - and these people have no interest in your formulation of this issue.

Split decision have the same weight of law as unanimous decisions. Bonnie And Clyde is when restrictions first really became serious. And those restrictions have held up. Yes the government can and does restrict the kind of weaponry we can own. Scalie discussed this in an interview that was disparaged rather than listened to. The disparagement-Scalia says shoulder fired missiles are allowed. What he really said was that would be up to Congress to allow. Or disallow.

Find Scalia as un assuring as you like of course. But please don’t make the classic gun critics mistake of ignoring or worse, denying the restrictions that have held up extremely well. I don’t think any court is going to claim the 2nd is no longer an individual right to bear arms in self defense. What they will do is continue to uphold existing and likely future restrictions. Lets not forget the Brady bill expired, it was not over ruled. Hundreds of laws have held up. Maybe many more with 50 states each with their own laws, and then counties, and then cities. The vast majority of gun restrictions hold up.

As a range operator, well, lets just say we make a lot of rules the NRA may not like. we allow a lot of shooting that the critics don’t like. We even *GASP!* restrict free speech, no Obama or real person images allowed at targets. No tannerite. (Flash boom powder) Civil and criminal laws in California have clearly shown gun owners can be held responsible. Elsewhere too. maybe not enough, maybe more needs doing.

But again, lets not ignore what’s on the books.

19
Donkey With No Name  Jun 29, 2016 • 5:51:19pm

re: #18 Great White Snark

And those restrictions have held up.

And I’m telling you they are being eroded in many places. Perhaps I just live in one where it’s more obvious, compared to you. There are significantly fewer legal restrictions on where you can have handguns in Texas now than in 1994. A lot of this is driven by a subculture that interprets the 2nd amendment, with respect to handguns specifically, as absolute in a way that you apparently don’t. (Where do you think the phrase “constitutional carry” came from?)

Enacting essentially any gun control measures these days, even ones you would personally find allowed in the context of Heller, is a political non-starter. Whether or not Heller allows restrictions is not the point; it’s that it opened the gates to demanding more guns everywhere.

I have never said that Heller eliminates all gun restrictions; that is a strawman. What I have said is that it encourages people to weaken the political ability to enact reasonable gun restrictions.

20
Donkey With No Name  Jun 29, 2016 • 6:33:28pm

re: #18 Great White Snark

And by the way …

Split decision have the same weight of law as unanimous decisions.

This really has nothing to do with my point. I mean, at least grant that I understand the basics of how the Supreme Court works. The point is that a 5-4 decision on what is claimed to be an obvious, well-established constitutional right for hundreds of years indicates that it was anything but. (Or, you know, those nasty liberals just hate guns!) In a court without Scalia, it could easily have been 5-4 the other direction. If, in that alternate universe, you would defend such a decision with the same passion as you do for the one in our world, I congratulate you for consistency, but I wonder…

Anyway, I know I’m not going to change your mind. But it would at least help if you acknowledged that concerns about the impact of Heller, politically and culturally, are not simply because people don’t understand it.

21
whitebeach  Jun 29, 2016 • 7:57:52pm

re: #2 Great White Snark

Sounds like a skip shot. Like a thrown rock skipping on a pond.

If so, the point at which it skipped should be fairly easy to find, no? Unless it was literally fired onto a water surface, in which case the operator should be arrested for criminal negligence or reckless endangerment, IMHO.

22
Great White Snark  Jun 29, 2016 • 7:58:04pm

re: #19 Donkey With No Name

Those laws in Texas went down completely exclusive of Heller. A Texas choice for Texas law.

23
Great White Snark  Jun 29, 2016 • 8:04:22pm

re: #21 whitebeach

If so, the point at which it skipped should be fairly easy to find, no? Unless it was literally fired onto a water surface, in which case the operator should be arrested for criminal negligence, IMHO.

I never heard of a fresh water gun range. I’d guess(!) that it hit ground so hard it left a big mark and kept going. Everyone thought it went into the dirt as intended. It happens with bullets, and what we call backstop is critical. With little .22 bullets. Yikes. Guess what else is possible-It arced through the dirt compacting a ramp that angled up turning away from the resistance. BUT too many ballistic facts/data unavailable.

I can tell you guys what should happen-A ballistic expert goes looking at the impacts. The gun. The ground and backstop. What will happen? Hard to say.

24
Dark_Falcon  Jun 30, 2016 • 6:23:13am

re: #19 Donkey With No Name

And I’m telling you they are being eroded in many places. Perhaps I just live in one where it’s more obvious, compared to you. There are significantly fewer legal restrictions on where you can have handguns in Texas now than in 1994. A lot of this is driven by a subculture that interprets the 2nd amendment, with respect to handguns specifically, as absolute in a way that you apparently don’t. (Where do you think the phrase “constitutional carry” came from?)

Enacting essentially any gun control measures these days, even ones you would personally find allowed in the context of Heller, is a political non-starter. Whether or not Heller allows restrictions is not the point; it’s that it opened the gates to demanding more guns everywhere.

I have never said that Heller eliminates all gun restrictions; that is a strawman. What I have said is that it encourages people to weaken the political ability to enact reasonable gun restrictions.

That, however, is a cultural problem that should not be the concern of the Supreme Court. SCOTUS’s concern on matters of Constitutional Law should be “What does the Constitution say on this matter?” If the Supreme Court moves past that into the cultural issues surrounding the matter at hand then it is stepping out of its Constitutional role and getting involved in matters that are the province of the elected branches of the government.

In short: The agendas the Heller decision has been used to support on a state legislative level are not the business of the Supreme Court unless the laws those agendas enact violate the state’s constitution, the national Constitution and/or federal law. If none of those three are violated, then the Court ought not to act based on said agendas.

25
drool  Jun 30, 2016 • 8:57:20am

This story is 2 years old.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Naked Capitalism Takedown on Biden’s Speech(0) [Introductory material omitted.] (1) But before we begin, I want to provide an update on our fight against COVID-19 and announce new steps[1]. [1] One would have expected new steps to generate some coverage, or, more precisely, to be ...
Captain Magic
1 day, 17 hours ago
Views: 227 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
There Is No Such Thing as “Mild” CovidRead this thread. The good news down at the end is that full vaccination does help mitigate long Covid. Nevertheless, you don't want to get a "mild" case of Covid. PSA: COVID-19 isn’t “just a cold,” isn’t “a respiratory virus,” ...
No Malarkey!
1 week, 4 days ago
Views: 864 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 25 •