That's not what I intended to say, but thanks for the tip.Do you have an opinion about whether the EPA should regulate the levels of pollutants in the water discharged from factories? If so, then I assume you know all the particulars and are able to state what those regulations should include.

Regulated meaning "1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law" which means if one law controls anything about AW's they then fit the definition of "regulated".

You are correct about the "I don't know"; however you've finished law school and passed a bar exam-
and you expect us to believe you do not know if automatic weapons have any laws which regulate them in any way shape or form in the USA? I resist the urge to say more...

No argument there.Why would I expect you to believe that? Did I say that I don't know whether they are regulated?

I believe that automatic weapons are highly regulated, but whether they are regulated or not has nothing to do with my opinion that they should be regulated. For one thing, regulations can be repealed. I think that should not happen in the case of automatic weapons. I think they should be regulated.

Your reference to my law school education gets things completely backwards. My legal education and my training as a young lawyer emphasized that when opining on any legal matter, it is important to read the actual sources. That everyone "knows" that automatic weapons are regulated is not sufficient authority for a lawyer to state any legal opinions on the subject. For me to know that automatic weapons are regulated, I would need to read the actual regulations. Fortunately for me, there is no need to do that because it has nothing to do with my opinion about whether they should be regulated.

My first boss after law school is one of the smartest people I've ever known. His standard answer when asked a legal question was, "I don't know." He said it all the time. There were several lessons that he was driving home. His main point was that it does not matter how well one did in law school or how skilled a lawyer is, he should go to the source before giving a legal opinion. He didn't take it to extremes. A lawyer is expected to know some answers off the top of his head, but "I don't know" should always be considered as a possible answer. Another lesson I took from his I-don't-know approach is that the best legal solution is often the one that has you covered even if part of your legal analysis is incorrect. A lawyer should only answer the questions necessary to achieve the desired result. It is a simple, effective, non-legalistic approach.

What is your fascination with my view that automatic weapons should be regulated?

The pro-gun crowd thinks that hunting rifles are going to be banned any day now. Nothing is etched in stone. Some gun enthusiasts complain that a ban on any weapon, full automatic included, puts us on a slippery slope which will lead to banning all weapons, for personal use anyway.

Saying that they should be regulated is a essentially saying that the status quo is correct, no need to weaken the laws in that regard.

There does seem to be a high level of paranoia associated with gun rights. One rather bizarre manifestation of this paranoia is the argument made by Wayne LaPierre of the NRA here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rInnziYivAM In LaPierre World, the reason Obama has done nothing to take away gun rights is so that he can really take away gun rights after he gets re-elected. It's hard to respond to an "argument" like that.

I don't know what motivates LaPierre to spout such nonsense. Maybe he is in it for the money. Or maybe he believes it. I would have hoped that LaPierre would give Obama credit for supporting the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, not just a right to maintain an militia. Obama's view became the law of the land with the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case, but he was on the gun owners' side well before that case came out.

Schumer made an interesting speech after the tradgedy in Denver where he admitted and referenced the extreme anti-gun nut crowds desire to indeed ban all guns from fellow citizens and the resultant hardening of the extemism of the extreme gun nut crowd who under the circumstances view all attempts at control as the begining of a slippery slope to banning and confiscation.

His view was that for common sense to prevail the extreme anti-gun nuts will have to get more realistic about the 2nd amendment and such before there would be any chance of a "meeting in the middle' on the subject. Not sure I agree with him on all the points but it seemed a remarkably enlightend view from a traditionally anti-gun legislator to me.

- Peter.

The emphasized language is rather the point. As pj has referenced, the anti-gun zealots want us to be England, with no private ownership of firearms (why they don't just move there if they like it so much is a different question). Giving them a victory with an "assault rifle" that simply looks menacing (again, we're talking about looks, not fully-automatic weaponry) doesn't do anything other than remove a class of firearms (the class being "those that look a certain way"). There is no middle ground with the "no guns at all" group.

Thus, the opposing strategy hearkens the old "give them an inch and they'll take a mile." So if they are required to fight on every front for every gun, it leaves more of the second amendment still intact.

bayonet lugs are a threat to peace and harmony.

Here's a project for you- Google "automatic weapons regulations" and get back with us and tell us how many seconds it took to find out if there is ONE regulation with regards to automatic weapons. I did and found this in under 17 seconds:

Are they illegal? No. Are they highly regulated? Yes.
Contrary to popular belief, fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal. They are however HIGHLY regulated. Full auto weapons have been regulated with three different pieces of legislation. The first was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Gun Control Act of 1968, and finally the Hughes Amendment in 1986. In essence, what these three laws have done is to say respectfully that fully automatic firearms must be taxed and regulated, cannot be imported from outside the United States, and can no longer manufacture and/or register new/existing full auto weapons with the federal government (BATFE).

To make conversation easy and to curtail the inane statements I suggest what I just did and you'll find it sufficient for internet banter purposes.

Did you say that you did not know if they were regulated? - haven't we gone over that extensively already? Are you trying to get onto the stupid lawyer quotes site? If you keep it up you may surpass this one:


Lawyer: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
Witness: "No."
Lawyer: "Did you check for blood pressure?"
Witness: "No."
Lawyer: "Did you check for breathing?"
Witness: "No."
Lawyer: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
Witness: "No."
Lawyer: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
Witness: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
Lawyer: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
Witness: "Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."

To steal a phrase from the great American philosopher Bryce Harper, that's a clown question, bro.

It's a clown question because the answer is not relevant to my opinion that automatic weapons should be regulated. Another reason it's a clown question is that the point is not in dispute. I have said several times that I assume they are regulated. If, for some clown reason, there was a need to verify that fact, I would not rely on some anonymous response to a 17-second google search. I would look at the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. That way, I would have reliable and specific information about the types of weapons that are regulated, the precise restrictions placed on them, etc.

I'm sorry if that seems stupid to you.

Not stupid. Plodding.

I'm tired of the whole argument. Some of these gun-geek arsenals speak to me of pathology. A real sort of 'I am powerful' infatuation going on there. 'I am man, destroyer of foes,' or something.

Expecting a rational discussion on such things is perhaps not realistic.

Isn't that nice. And you're the one who used to talk about "rigor." I guess you've moved beyond that silly notion.

To each his own, but if you ask me, few things are as pointless as a discussion of some legal or technical issue based only on what the participants believe to be the truth. If you want to talk about the particulars of gun regulations and whether greater or lesser regulation is in order, why wouldn't you go to the source? I am not interested in that discussion, which is why I never brought it up. If you guys want to talk about the particulars of gun regulation, have at it. What I can't figure out is why so many of you insist that I join the discussion. You guys don't even like me, I don't get why some of you want so badly for me to comment on the state of automatic weapon regulation.

The thing I have noticed about your insults is how they ignore logic and precision. I think you could step up your insult game if you could make sure that your insults include an element of truth.

What is opposite of BS?

Boggles my mind. I'm looking for a metaphor here.

It's plodding not because you're stupid or ignorant. It's not an insult, it's a metaphorical description of your pace of argument. You characterize it as being carefully logical? Maybe so. Looks evasive and unresponsive to me, shifting the burden continuously to other people forcing them to ask you questions until they understand you without your having to extend and explain yourself. It's a good and useful tactic for avoiding over-exposure of your position.

Not stupid. Not ignorant. Calculated and careful. Plodding.