HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Godwin's Law and RKBA
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:26 PM

Godwin's Law and RKBA

(from the Godwin's Law wiki page)

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis.


(from the same article):
...there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress...


I propose a new corollary to Godwin's Law; perhaps it could be called Needledriver's Corollary:

"As an online discussion of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms grows longer, the probability of someone hyperbolically suggesting that the 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear weapons of mass destruction approaches 1."

"Arms" as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment does not and did not ever refer to weapons of mass destruction, yet it is frequent to the point of inevitability that someone finally brings nukes into the discussion, as in:

"There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia."


"5. I want nuclear weapons
It's my right as an American."


"18. I need an A-bomb to defend my property.
I don't like the way my neighbor's cat is looking at my rose bush. Why are there "restrictive laws" which prevent me from getting one? "


I further propose that, like Godwin's Law, if someone does invoke weapons of mass destruction in a thread about RKBA, that Needledriver's Corollary is in effect; that the thread is is finished and whoever mentioned weapons of mass destruction has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.



19 replies, 2344 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Godwin's Law and RKBA (Original post)
needledriver Jul 2012 OP
gordianot Jul 2012 #1
LonePirate Jul 2012 #2
TPaine7 Jul 2012 #3
needledriver Jul 2012 #4
TPaine7 Jul 2012 #5
TPaine7 Jul 2012 #6
rl6214 Jul 2012 #8
TPaine7 Jul 2012 #9
tortoise1956 Jan 2013 #11
tortoise1956 Jan 2013 #12
ileus Jul 2012 #7
needledriver Jan 2013 #10
petronius Jan 2013 #13
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #14
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #15
needledriver Jan 2013 #16
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #18
needledriver Jan 2013 #19
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #17

Response to needledriver (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:42 PM

1. Well the Nazi's did not manage nuclear weapons.......The End

Goodwin's Law and your your Needledriver's Corrollary should be listed under Voldermorts Rule mention the name and it dies. I can think of only one thing potentially worse than Nazi's that is the myriad contemporary Right Wing nut jobs getting access to nuclear weapons you know the ones who make W look like a humanitarian and sane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to needledriver (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:54 PM

2. How many people can a weapon kill in a short time before gun rights advocates deem it excessive?

That's the real question here. Nukes are merely an extreme. Whatever number the gun rights advocates decide upon, the human safety advocates will decide upon a lower one.

Besides, I thought it was all about the responsibility of the person owning the weapon. If the person is responsible, licensed and trained, then what difference does it make whether the weapon can kill one person or one million?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 03:59 PM

3. The Second Amendment was talking about weapons that can not only be kept but bourne.

 

If you can "keep and bear" a nuclear bomb, a tank, an aircraft carrier or the like, you need a secret identity more than any weapon.

And Nick Fury would like to talk to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:49 PM

4. D'oh!

Suitcase nuke. There goes the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to needledriver (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 05:23 PM

5. Touche' n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to needledriver (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:05 PM

6. There are two other arguments, but I will leave them to be made by those who understand them better.

 

1. The word "arms" was a term of art that applied to weapons like rifles and handguns but not to weapon types that would not be used by an ordinary combatant.

2. The line should be drawn between discriminate weapons, like semiautomatic guns, and indiscriminate weapons, like grenades and machine guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 08:08 PM

8. By the term "arms" were they not also talking about weapons they could and did take home,

 

Their musket would be = a modern AR15 as their personal weapon and a pistol would be = a Colt .45acp or Beretta 9mm.

They didn't take home their cannons as they did not belong to them, just like they wouldn't take home a rocket launcher, scud or some other form of weapon that was not considered a personal weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 09:01 PM

9. I think so, but I'd like someone who knows more about it than I do to weigh in n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:36 PM

11. That's how I've usually seen it interpreted

Searching the web for 18th century definitions of "Arms"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 06:44 PM

12. Here's a link to various definitions used in the Heller decision...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to needledriver (Original post)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 06:30 PM

7. The ole A bomb is thrown by people that don't believe in the 2A.

they don't think anyone should have firearms...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to needledriver (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:12 PM

10. I should have worn out my keyboard by now.

I have clearly dropped the ball on declaring Needledriver's Corollary every time someone invoked weapons of mass destruction in a thread about RKBA over the past two months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to needledriver (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:22 PM

13. You could always issue a blanket retroactive declaration, and then the statisticans

could update the record books accordingly...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to needledriver (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:28 PM

14. Can't really use an atom bomb defensively without killint innocent people.

So it's useless in a 2nd amendment context.
Pretty powerful argument against its use in open warfare between nations as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to needledriver (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:30 PM

15. 1776 muskets were not assault weapons

TPaine 1. The word "arms" was a term of art that applied to weapons like rifles and handguns but not to weapon types that would not be used by an ordinary combatant.

websters 1828 dictionary: arms'ARMS, n. plu.
1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
2. War; hostility. Arms and the man I sing. To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life. To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war. To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.
Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.
3. The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, &c...
4. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.
5. In botany, one of the seven species of fulcra....
Sire arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c.
A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/arms

rl6214 -- Their musket would be = a modern AR15 as their personal weapon and a pistol would be = a Colt .45acp or Beretta 9mm.

Absurd; The musket during the rev-war comprised 80% of gunstock, rifles approx 20% with a couple percent pistols. The AR15, perhaps 10 - 15 million out of current gunstock of ~300 million, accounts for about 5%. A 22 caliber rifle might be what you try to depict, or 'rifles in general', but even that is wrong.
Their 'pistol' back then would need be, today, something rare, perhaps a derringer might suffice.

.. their musket today, would be a single shot black powder musket.
There were effectively 3 different types of firearms then, a single shot musket & a single shot rifle & a single or double shot pistol. A blunderbuss a musket with a widened barrel.
Those 3 types of firearms sufficed & provided all that was needed, in the gun sense, to satisfy the 2ndA.
There were no hell fire triggers, no hermetically sealed ammunition, no precision fmjs, no brass casings, no 10 round clips, no semi autos, no dum dums, no silencers, no compensators, no 3,000 fps muzzle velocities, no windage concerns outside of guesswork, no safe safeties.
.. their 1790 musket by itself was essentially useless in offensive battle. Buck & ball was a hope & a prayer, prone to inaccuracy & misfire. The musket only became an assault weapon once it had a bayonet attached, and then it effectively became a spear - it was prized far more as a spear or pike rather than as an effective firearm. Soldiers feared the bayo more than the musket ball.

From this history of early firearm weakness has developed our modern american gun culture with sophisticated guns, depicted as what the 'founding fathers intended', when not a one would've approved of what has become a national disgrace today, especially when used blatantly outside a well regulated militia context.

They didn't take home their cannons as they did not belong to them, just like they wouldn't take home a rocket launcher, scud or some other form of weapon that was not considered a personal weapon.

pfft, silliness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:16 PM

16. So you agree!

Those 3 types of firearms sufficed & provided all that was needed, in the gun sense, to satisfy the 2ndA.

The subject under discussion is the kind of weapons that you could "keep" and "bear", and not the distracting introduction of weapons of mass destruction, but since you mention it:

There were no hell fire triggers,

A well tuned lock can provide instant ignition, which is asking a lot from a swinging a piece of rock against a piece of steel to fire your weapon.

no hermetically sealed ammunition,

You had better be very careful to protect your powder and cartridges from moisture if you expect them to survive a three month ocean voyage in usable condition.

no precision fmjs,

A well patched ball can strike a human target at 350 yards.

no brass casings,

Musket cartridges are rolled in paper.

no 10 round clips,

Packed ten to a set in brown paper tied up with string!

no semi autos,

Some guys claim to be able to do four rounds a minute but the best I can do is three.

no dum dums,

They had such things as deliberately mutilated musket balls and musket balls with nails driven through them.

no safe safeties.

I have a hammerstall which prevents accidental striking of the flint and steel, and a half cock notch. You don't want your musket to go off half cocked!

.. their 1790 musket by itself was essentially useless in offensive battle.

Yes, but a 1790 musket doesn't get used by itself as an offensive weapon. It gets used alongside dozens of other 1790 muskets firing together. A Company of soldiers is a shotgun fifty feet wide, throwing lead down range three times a minute. This can be quite offensive - and is the very essence of what it means to be well regulated.

You title your reply "1776 muskets were not assault weapons", then you say "The musket only became an assault weapon once it had a bayonet attached". By 1776 most muskets were equipped with bayonets, so by your own definition they were assault weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to needledriver (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:33 AM

18. banzai bayonet

needledriver: So you agree!

Your superficial comparisons only validated my points. Nail & Ball? bet that caught on like burning snow, espeially with the 120,000 new musquettes purchased from france & dutch at warstart.

me: .. their 1790 musket by itself was essentially useless in offensive battle.
you: Yes, but a 1790 musket doesn't get used by itself as an offensive weapon. It gets used alongside dozens of other 1790 muskets firing together. A Company of soldiers is a shotgun fifty feet wide, throwing lead down range three times a minute. This can be quite offensive - and is the very essence of what it means to be well regulated.

You're mainly speaking of defensive posture, not offensive; a frontal assault would entail rushing the enemy with bayoneted muskets drawn, firing your one shot as you got within 50 yards, then closing for bayonet work. Little time to aim as you bore down, musket fire used as much for shock value as hitting anything.
The british however, did tend to make even this ineffective shot more effective by often standing in formation on approach. If it were simply 'dueling muskets' from 100 yards, that's not really an offensive, tho could be a 'preliminary barrage' of sorts.

You title your reply "1776 muskets were not assault weapons", then you say "The musket only became an assault weapon once it had a bayonet attached". By 1776 most muskets were equipped with bayonets, so by your own definition they were assault weapons.

What I said is true, the musket itself was not an assault weapon. A 'Bayonetted Musket' was an assault weapon, prized for it's bayonet rather than flash bang. Only an idiot or desparate banzai leader would make a frontal assault with a one shot musket without bayonet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:49 PM

19. Assault weapons of another time

Your superficial comparisons only validated my points.

There is a theme among some RKBA arguments that the 2nd Amendment intends that the people have a right to keep and bear arms equivalent to those used by the government, in part to allow themselves to fulfill their militia service with comparable weapons. Following through on that is the idea that just because weapons technology has changed a great deal in the past 230 years, that does not mean that the people are limited to the weapons technology available in the 18th Century; rather that the people have a right to keep and bear arms equivalent to those used by the government today.

You yourself posted the Webster definition of "A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt," hence "Arms" includes a musket and bayonet, whether or not the bayonet is actually fixed to the musket at the time. Given that a bayonet lug was one of the defining features of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, having the capability to fix a bayonet is considered a characteristic of an Assault Weapon.

You are quite correct. A Short Land Pattern Musket is not an Assault Weapon by 21st Century standards, and you offered many reasons why it is not one by 21st Century standards. Well, duh. My "superficial comparisons" were offered to show that there are many equivalencies, that ammunition manufacture, storage, packaging, and even atrocities all had their place:

Nail & Ball? bet that caught on like burning snow

Quoting from page 60 and 61 in The Book of The Continental Soldier by Peterson:

"In October 1777, Washington made the practice of using buckshot universal by ordering that "Buckshot are to be put into all cartridges which shall hereafter be made."

Even this lethality was not enough for some, however. Whether they were more ferocious or just more inventive, such individuals mutilated musket balls by cutting them so that they would fragment or at least flatten out upon impact. A few went even further. In 1776 British General Sir William Howe complained to Washington:

My Aid de Camp charged with the Delivering of this letter will present to you a Ball cut and fixed to the Ends of a Nail, taken from a Number of the same kind, found in the Encampments quitted by your Troops on the 15th Instant. I do not make any comments upon such unwarrantable and malicious Practices, being well assured the Contrivance has not come to your Knowledge.

General Howe was apparently just as ignorant of the fact that the same kind of missile was used by his own men, for several such balls were found in the excavation of a British camp at Inwood, New York and are now preserved in the New York Historical Society's museum."

a frontal assault would entail rushing the enemy with bayoneted muskets drawn, firing your one shot as you got within 50 yards, then closing for bayonet work. Little time to aim as you bore down, musket fire used as much for shock value as hitting anything.

That is a refreshingly accurate assessment of linear warfare tactics of the American War for Independence. If you haven't already, you should read the book "With Zeal and Bayonets Only", by M. H. Spring. It turns the stupid-Redcoats-fighting-shoulder-to-shouder meme on its head, and shows the British soldier as tough, courageous, and active. Battles weren't drawn out affairs where the troops blasted away at each other - they fired until they saw the enemy begin to falter then rushed in with the bayonet.

What I said is true, the musket itself was not an assault weapon.

Well, yes, that is one way to look at it. By that same definition, an AR-15 without a bayonet is not an assault weapon. A Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle is not an Assault Weapon, but a Ruger Tactical Mini-24 with an adjustable stock, Picatinny Rails, and a flash suppressor is. Or not, depending whether it has a bayonet lug. I forget.

The point is, any law which infringes on the keeping and bearing of firearms based on what they look like as opposed to their capabilities is just pointless rhetoric which will accomplish nothing except to incite people to higher and higher levels of hyperbole until someone creates a straw man armed with nuclear weapons at which point Needledriver's Corollary takes effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimmy the one (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:57 PM

17. What would you consider the Ferguson rifle to be?

Compared to the muzzle loaders it had a rapid rate of fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread