If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   In response to a measure banning semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, a Vermont gun range starts a ban of their own   (foxnews.com) divider line 536
    More: Dumbass, semi-automatic rifle, gun ranges, Vermont, capability management  
•       •       •

24497 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2013 at 12:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



536 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-29 04:33:49 PM  

DoctorCal: Kit Fister: dofus: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

This. This. A dozen times this.

This constant harping about banning assault weapons "is taking away our God-given Constitutional Rights" is a load of baloney. M-16s are banned and (almost) no one biatches about it. The AR-15 is (was) a semi-auto M-16 before the Rambo Wannabes started making hot rods out of them.

The NRA doesn't give a damn where the legal/illegal bar is set. It gets paid by the people who manufacture hot rod parts at absurd profit margins.

/Wouldn't vote for an assault weapons ban
//What would be the point?
///There's already thousands (millions?) of unregistered/untraceable units out there

Uhm, M16s aren't banned. Restricted Infringed, yes, but not banned.


If you look at the role of a fully auto weapon vs what would have done the same job when the constitution was written, it plays the role that cannons did back then: Wide area indiscriminate killing. Cannons were not "arms" they were "ordinance". Every weapon that was considered arms at that time was a "aim, shoot, kill one target" weapon. Even though today's language calls all weapons arms, cannons, missiles, ICBMs, and even M16s do not fall into the Constitution's definition of Arms.
 
2013-01-29 04:35:57 PM  

Kit Fister: Carousel Beast: dittybopper: Wayne 985: I think it's important to distinguish between gun nuts and gun owners. I've owned guns. I've also never had paranoid delusions about fighting the American government and murdering cops, unlike gun nuts.

I've never had paranoid delusions about either myself.

I *HAVE* talked about the subject in the abstract, of course, at least the idea of an armed citizenry potentially resisting a government that becomes tyrannical. If you want me to list the reasons why it could be more effective than you might think, I can.

Besides which, we've taken that name back: I'm a proud gun nut. You know what I own? A couple of bolt action rifles, and a flintlock. That's it. But I'm a gun nut nonetheless, and I stand in solidarity with my fellow gun nuts.

Yeah, don't try pulling that crap here. You're just trying to cover up that you are, in fact, an Archery NutTM.

I'm an explosives nut (in a safe environment supervised by the proper authorities of course...)


I like my fingers too much for that sort of fun.
 
2013-01-29 04:42:55 PM  

Wayne 985: Ethically, he's not wrong at all. The 13th amendment prohibits slavery. The 3rd prohibits troops from quartering themselves in your home. Those are not of equal value and the 13th is clearly more important.


until they decide that your spare bedroom would be put to better use housing soldiers that you also have to feed and support. That's a form of slavery as well.

You can pick and choose which are more important to you. I, on the other hand, will jealously guard them all.
 
2013-01-29 04:43:34 PM  

dittybopper: AbiNormal: . I think they happen because we do not have adequate access to mental health care in the US. Thanks mostly to Reagan shutting down all of the mental health facilities in the US in the 80's.

Actually, deinstitutionalisation wasn't due to Reagan, it started in the late 1960's/early 1970's. Reagan was just the tail end of a trend that started long before he got elected.


It started in the 60's in California when Reagan was Governor of California.
 
2013-01-29 04:49:36 PM  
 
2013-01-29 04:50:06 PM  

enforcerpsu: morgen_benner: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

I'l bite, though I truly hope I'm feeding a troll:

DC vs Heller ruled that we indeed do have the right to private ownership.

Anyone who tries to tell me the 2nd amendment was referring to a state militia instantly gets labeled as an idiot because the 2nd amendment clearly defines an individual's right to own firearms. This has been beaten to death and that side of the argument needs to stop using it. It makes them look extremely ignorant.


Instead of calling them idiots try pointing out that the supreme court deemed it an individual right (a militia could be just one person after all)

2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson
2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller
2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago
These rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right
 
2013-01-29 04:54:44 PM  

MarkEC: DoctorCal: Kit Fister: dofus: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

This. This. A dozen times this.

This constant harping about banning assault weapons "is taking away our God-given Constitutional Rights" is a load of baloney. M-16s are banned and (almost) no one biatches about it. The AR-15 is (was) a semi-auto M-16 before the Rambo Wannabes started making hot rods out of them.

The NRA doesn't give a damn where the legal/illegal bar is set. It gets paid by the people who manufacture hot rod parts at absurd profit margins.

/Wouldn't vote for an assault weapons ban
//What would be the point?
///There's already thousands (millions?) of unregistered/untraceable units out there

Uhm, M16s aren't banned. Restricted Infringed, yes, but not banned.

If you look at the role of a fully auto weapon vs what would have done the same job when the constitution was written, it plays the role that cannons did back then: Wide area indiscriminate killing. Cannons were not "arms" they were "ordinance". Every weapon that was considered arms at that time was a "aim, shoot, kill one target" weapon. Even though today's language calls all weapons arms, cannons, missiles, ICBMs, and even M16s do not fall into the Constitution's definition of Arms.


If you're going to double quote something, make sure you spell it correctly.
I'm going to have to find some other sources that refute your point, as I know it's incorrect but can't recall any off the top of my head. I thought somewhere in the Heller case they described anything hand held as an arm. However  consider that cannons were in private ownership at the time (see letters of Marquise and privateering).
 
2013-01-29 04:54:53 PM  

UseUrHeadFred: I don't understand their reasoning.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.


If there is a ban on the "assault" weapons, how are the police allowed to use them? The club can't violate the ban for a particular party (discrimination you see.) So, sorry, cops are out of luck too. Time to break out the Saturday night specials boys and brush up on your revolver handling.
 
2013-01-29 04:59:46 PM  

pedrop357: Wayne 985: Ethically, he's not wrong at all. The 13th amendment prohibits slavery. The 3rd prohibits troops from quartering themselves in your home. Those are not of equal value and the 13th is clearly more important.

until they decide that your spare bedroom would be put to better use housing soldiers that you also have to feed and support. That's a form of slavery as well.

You can pick and choose which are more important to you. I, on the other hand, will jealously guard them all.


We've had both in human history. If you had to choose between the life of a man who had to feed troops or the life of a man who worked the fields, then was castrated and beaten to death because he talked back, I don't doubt for a minute that you would choose the former.
 
2013-01-29 05:01:51 PM  

Wayne 985: pedrop357: Wayne 985: Ethically, he's not wrong at all. The 13th amendment prohibits slavery. The 3rd prohibits troops from quartering themselves in your home. Those are not of equal value and the 13th is clearly more important.

until they decide that your spare bedroom would be put to better use housing soldiers that you also have to feed and support. That's a form of slavery as well.

You can pick and choose which are more important to you. I, on the other hand, will jealously guard them all.

We've had both in human history. If you had to choose between the life of a man who had to feed troops or the life of a man who worked the fields, then was castrated and beaten to death because he talked back, I don't doubt for a minute that you would choose the former.


For the record, I don't know why you would assume I don't want to "jealously guard them all" myself. I value every one of my body parts, but I'll still admit that losing a pinkie finger is not as bad as losing an eye.
 
2013-01-29 05:01:54 PM  

AbiNormal: dittybopper: AbiNormal: . I think they happen because we do not have adequate access to mental health care in the US. Thanks mostly to Reagan shutting down all of the mental health facilities in the US in the 80's.

Actually, deinstitutionalisation wasn't due to Reagan, it started in the late 1960's/early 1970's. Reagan was just the tail end of a trend that started long before he got elected.

It started in the 60's in California when Reagan was Governor of California.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation and O'Connor_v._Donaldson
 
2013-01-29 05:02:25 PM  

AbiNormal: dittybopper: AbiNormal: . I think they happen because we do not have adequate access to mental health care in the US. Thanks mostly to Reagan shutting down all of the mental health facilities in the US in the 80's.

Actually, deinstitutionalisation wasn't due to Reagan, it started in the late 1960's/early 1970's. Reagan was just the tail end of a trend that started long before he got elected.

It started in the 60's in California when Reagan was Governor of California.


There is more than enough blame to go around on this. The facilities that existed were often god-awful and housed people in barely humane conditions. They were expensive and not always that effective. With the rise of better pharmaceuticals, it became less necessary to house as many people like this.

On the flip side, if you start to talk about involuntary commitment, you get the ACLU brigade that screams that you can't commit someone or force someone to take medication who hasn't done anything wrong.

So, we do need to have a frank discussion about mental health in this country. Go ahead and blame Reagan all you want, but he's been dead for years now, time to move on and fix the problem.
 
2013-01-29 05:05:57 PM  

Kit Fister: OgreMagi: The police tried to disarm those shop owners. Their response was basically "fark off". Funny how the LAPD didn't have the manpower to deal with looting, but could spare an officer to harass honest people protecting their property.

The LAPD couldn't restore order without bringing in the National Guard. It took the farking MILITARY to sort some of that shiat out.


The LAPD abandoned the city as punishment for daring to put some of their own on trial.
 
2013-01-29 05:07:44 PM  

Wayne 985: We've had both in human history. If you had to choose between the life of a man who had to feed troops or the life of a man who worked the fields, then was castrated and beaten to death because he talked back, I don't doubt for a minute that you would choose the former.


You're assuming that all forced troop boarding would be peaceful and domestic like and not at all like having a police state monitor in your house full time who along with his buddies next door can beat, rape, and steal all they want as long as they sync their storie on the off chance anyone complains.
 
2013-01-29 05:10:29 PM  

redmid17: MarkEC: DoctorCal: Kit Fister: dofus: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

This. This. A dozen times this.

This constant harping about banning assault weapons "is taking away our God-given Constitutional Rights" is a load of baloney. M-16s are banned and (almost) no one biatches about it. The AR-15 is (was) a semi-auto M-16 before the Rambo Wannabes started making hot rods out of them.

The NRA doesn't give a damn where the legal/illegal bar is set. It gets paid by the people who manufacture hot rod parts at absurd profit margins.

/Wouldn't vote for an assault weapons ban
//What would be the point?
///There's already thousands (millions?) of unregistered/untraceable units out there

Uhm, M16s aren't banned. Restricted Infringed, yes, but not banned.

If you look at the role of a fully auto weapon vs what would have done the same job when the constitution was written, it plays the role that cannons did back then: Wide area indiscriminate killing. Cannons were not "arms" they were "ordinance". Every weapon that was considered arms at that time was a "aim, shoot, kill one target" weapon. Even though today's language calls all weapons arms, cannons, missiles, ICBMs, and even M16s do not fall into the Constitution's definition of Arms.

If you're going to double quote something, make sure you spell it correctly.
I'm going to have to find some other sources that refute your point, as I know it's incorrect but can't recall any off the top of my head. I thought somewhere in the Heller case they described anything hand held as an arm. However  consider that cannons were in private ownership at the time (see letters of Marquise and privateering).


You can own a cannon today. With an FFL it's definitely legal, and I think in some cases it is legal without one.
 
2013-01-29 05:11:07 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: "It is a constitutional issue. I mean, it's not just a Second Amendment constitutional issue; but it's also a constitutional issue for Vermont. We have laws that have the state governing our gun controls in this area and they're looking to supersede those," he said.

Boivin argues city-by-city gun rules would create a multitude of challenges.

"If you're going to a shoot, say in one end of Vermont to the other, you have to check the laws for every town in between, and you will pass through a half a dozen different towns, and that makes it almost impossible for someone to stay as a legal gun owner, and that's what we're concerned about," he said.

Very good points


Firearms Owner's Protection Act prevents this from happening. If someone was going to a shooting competition in Vermont and passed through New York or Jersey (who have strict gun control laws even before the current derp), they can't be prosecuted for possession as long as they meet a few basic requirements.
 
2013-01-29 05:16:23 PM  

Wayne 985: OgreMagi: The habit of the police covering their own crimes make your "proof" not just suspect, but absolutely worthless.

[images.sodahead.com image 350x262]

You're adorable. I guess the federal government's stats are a part of the conspiracy too.


The people compiling the stats could be completely honest, but the resutls will still be incorrect because the data they collect is corrupted. And as for you, if you have ever seen an instance of a fellow police officer overstepping his legal authority, performaning illegal searches, violating rights, but did not report it, then you are just as much a part of the problem as the cop breaking the law.

And I'm not surprised a cop would deny there is corruption. You guys are so used to covering for each other that you no longer think you are doing anything wrong.
 
2013-01-29 05:22:03 PM  
Wayne's a cop?
 
2013-01-29 05:26:34 PM  

OgreMagi: Wayne 985: OgreMagi: The habit of the police covering their own crimes make your "proof" not just suspect, but absolutely worthless.

[images.sodahead.com image 350x262]

You're adorable. I guess the federal government's stats are a part of the conspiracy too.

The people compiling the stats could be completely honest, but the resutls will still be incorrect because the data they collect is corrupted. And as for you, if you have ever seen an instance of a fellow police officer overstepping his legal authority, performaning illegal searches, violating rights, but did not report it, then you are just as much a part of the problem as the cop breaking the law.

And I'm not surprised a cop would deny there is corruption. You guys are so used to covering for each other that you no longer think you are doing anything wrong.


I am not a police officer.
 
2013-01-29 05:37:54 PM  

Kit Fister: Now STOP with the glorification of cops.


Have you read a damn thing I've said? Specifically the parts where I called American cops corrupt, pointed out that I did NOT want them having access to anything dangerous, and TOLD YOU I DID NOT CONSIDER THEM ANY BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE?

craig328: The original comment was specifically about assault weapons and then fully automatic weapons...not nightsticks. And the original comment was made in relation to the notion that police are, opined by some, to have a superior need for weapons that the general public would not. You disagreed by (perhaps erroneously on your part) equating "assault weapons" and "fully automatic weapons" to "more specialized tools than are available to the general public".

If that wasn't your intent then so be it. However, it certainly reads that you seem to wish to allow police to have weaponry that would not be possessable by other, non-police, civilians.


I think I put 'I DO NOT WANT POLICE OWNING ASSAULT RIFLES' in the slashies. If not, the, what,  ten other times I've said it now should suffice. I was referring to the argument itself, that owning an assault rifle is bad  because a police officer is a civilian--well, it's a different job, and requires different tools, so that's an invalid argument.

way south: I think I see the problem here.
Paramilitary forces are sometimes given policing powers, but the police by definition are not a paramilitary force. You've moved beyond civilian self enforcement if you start imposing military rules and practices.


treesloth: By that standard, the Salvation Army is a paramilitary group. It depends on how one interprets "military rankings and traditions". Classifying either the civilian police or the SA as "paramilitary" stretches those terms considerably.


Okay, at least you two read what I said. If you don't want to define the police as paramilitary, that's fine; but we can all agree a police officer will require different tools to do their job (NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE EVER) than, say, your IT guy, right? Because yes, I'm willing to grant there is a lot of wiggle room here; my point about police v. IT guy is the big one, whether it's called paramilitary or Barney Special Hug Squadrons.
 
2013-01-29 05:41:35 PM  

redmid17: MarkEC: DoctorCal: Kit Fister: dofus: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

This. This. A dozen times this.

This constant harping about banning assault weapons "is taking away our God-given Constitutional Rights" is a load of baloney. M-16s are banned and (almost) no one biatches about it. The AR-15 is (was) a semi-auto M-16 before the Rambo Wannabes started making hot rods out of them.

The NRA doesn't give a damn where the legal/illegal bar is set. It gets paid by the people who manufacture hot rod parts at absurd profit margins.

/Wouldn't vote for an assault weapons ban
//What would be the point?
///There's already thousands (millions?) of unregistered/untraceable units out there

Uhm, M16s aren't banned. Restricted Infringed, yes, but not banned.

If you look at the role of a fully auto weapon vs what would have done the same job when the constitution was written, it plays the role that cannons did back then: Wide area indiscriminate killing. Cannons were not "arms" they were "ordinance". Every weapon that was considered arms at that time was a "aim, shoot, kill one target" weapon. Even though today's language calls all weapons arms, cannons, missiles, ICBMs, and even M16s do not fall into the Constitution's definition of Arms.

If you're going to double quote something, make sure you spell it correctly.
I'm going to have to find some other sources that refute your point, as I know it's incorrect but can't recall any off the top of my head. I thought somewhere in the Heller case they described anything hand held as an arm. However  consider that cannons were in private ownership at the time (see letters of Marquise and privateering).


I misspelled a word I haven't used in years, so shoot me. Ordnance.
Yes, cannons were in private hands at the time, but no one at that time considered them to be arms. My point was that a fully automatic weapon of today is used to lay down indiscriminate fire in a battle and that is not the role of arms at the time the constitution was written. I don't think the Heller case spoke at all to fully automatic weapons. The SC could have been purposely vague on their definition of arms so that their decision couldn't be used in the future to ban weapons that could be construed to be outside their definition.
 
2013-01-29 05:42:54 PM  

kriegsgeist: redmid17: MarkEC: DoctorCal: Kit Fister: dofus: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

This. This. A dozen times this.

This constant harping about banning assault weapons "is taking away our God-given Constitutional Rights" is a load of baloney. M-16s are banned and (almost) no one biatches about it. The AR-15 is (was) a semi-auto M-16 before the Rambo Wannabes started making hot rods out of them.

The NRA doesn't give a damn where the legal/illegal bar is set. It gets paid by the people who manufacture hot rod parts at absurd profit margins.

/Wouldn't vote for an assault weapons ban
//What would be the point?
///There's already thousands (millions?) of unregistered/untraceable units out there

Uhm, M16s aren't banned. Restricted Infringed, yes, but not banned.

If you look at the role of a fully auto weapon vs what would have done the same job when the constitution was written, it plays the role that cannons did back then: Wide area indiscriminate killing. Cannons were not "arms" they were "ordinance". Every weapon that was considered arms at that time was a "aim, shoot, kill one target" weapon. Even though today's language calls all weapons arms, cannons, missiles, ICBMs, and even M16s do not fall into the Constitution's definition of Arms.

If you're going to double quote something, make sure you spell it correctly.
I'm going to have to find some other sources that refute your point, as I know it's incorrect but can't recall any off the top of my head. I thought somewhere in the Heller case they described anything hand held as an arm. However  consider that cannons were in private ownership at the time (see letters of Marquise and privateering).

You can own a cannon t ...


If the cannon was made prior to 1899, you can own it without an FFL. I know dittybopper has a mortar (?) or something similar.
 
2013-01-29 05:43:50 PM  

kriegsgeist: You can own a cannon today. With an FFL it's definitely legal, and I think in some cases it is legal without one.

Being legal, and being constitutionally protected are not the same thing.
 
2013-01-29 05:45:54 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Wayne's a cop?


Wayne 985: OgreMagi: Wayne 985: OgreMagi: The habit of the police covering their own crimes make your "proof" not just suspect, but absolutely worthless.

[images.sodahead.com image 350x262]

You're adorable. I guess the federal government's stats are a part of the conspiracy too.

The people compiling the stats could be completely honest, but the resutls will still be incorrect because the data they collect is corrupted. And as for you, if you have ever seen an instance of a fellow police officer overstepping his legal authority, performaning illegal searches, violating rights, but did not report it, then you are just as much a part of the problem as the cop breaking the law.

And I'm not surprised a cop would deny there is corruption. You guys are so used to covering for each other that you no longer think you are doing anything wrong.

I am not a police officer.


When someone is that much of an apolgist for the police, it's easy to make that mistake.
 
2013-01-29 05:46:29 PM  
Wayne 985:
We've had both in human history. If you had to choose between the life of a man who had to feed troops or the life of a man who worked the fields, then was castrated and beaten to death because he talked back, I don't doubt for a minute that you would choose the former.

.
Something tells me you're completely ignorant about why this is even in the BoR in the first place. Free hint: It's not talking about some of your buddies from the war getting dinner, hitting the rack in the spare room, getting some breakfast, and then marching off. It's not even talking about repeating the dinner/sleep/breakfast bit 30 or 90 times before the marching bit.
 
2013-01-29 05:47:49 PM  

MarkEC: redmid17: MarkEC: DoctorCal: Kit Fister: dofus: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

This. This. A dozen times this.

This constant harping about banning assault weapons "is taking away our God-given Constitutional Rights" is a load of baloney. M-16s are banned and (almost) no one biatches about it. The AR-15 is (was) a semi-auto M-16 before the Rambo Wannabes started making hot rods out of them.

The NRA doesn't give a damn where the legal/illegal bar is set. It gets paid by the people who manufacture hot rod parts at absurd profit margins.

/Wouldn't vote for an assault weapons ban
//What would be the point?
///There's already thousands (millions?) of unregistered/untraceable units out there

Uhm, M16s aren't banned. Restricted Infringed, yes, but not banned.

If you look at the role of a fully auto weapon vs what would have done the same job when the constitution was written, it plays the role that cannons did back then: Wide area indiscriminate killing. Cannons were not "arms" they were "ordinance". Every weapon that was considered arms at that time was a "aim, shoot, kill one target" weapon. Even though today's language calls all weapons arms, cannons, missiles, ICBMs, and even M16s do not fall into the Constitution's definition of Arms.

If you're going to double quote something, make sure you spell it correctly.
I'm going to have to find some other sources that refute your point, as I know it's incorrect but can't recall any off the top of my head. I thought somewhere in the Heller case they described anything hand held as an arm. However  consider that cannons were in private ownership at the time (see letters of Marquise and privateering).

I misspelled a word I ...


I would still dispute your assertion that M-16s should be considered ordnance (outside of the fact that literally no army considers them ordnance). M16s and the like are the staple weapon for infantry units. Cannons never were. There were specialized units handling the cannons. Just because the efficacy of something is better doesn't mean it gets redefined arbitrarily.
 
2013-01-29 05:50:40 PM  
PsiChick

...but we can all agree a police officer will require different tools to do their job (NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE EVER) than, say, your IT guy, right?

Of course. Firearms aren't much use in IT save tangentially.

That being said, the IT guy and the cop should both have access to (or ability to own, rather) the same weapons. Not for their jobs, but both as civilians. That the cop might use his on the job is, ultimately, unimportant; fighting criminals is (in theory) part of the job.
 
2013-01-29 06:00:44 PM  

freeforever: justtray: I really want to hear someone successfully argue why police shouldnt be better armed than civilians without using petty semantic arguments. (the gun nut favorite go-to)

Translation: I really want to hear someone successfully argue why police shouldn't be better armed than civilians without using arguments that undermine my own. Of course, you wouldn't need to ask that question if you just had a cursory understanding of 20th-century history and what happens when the state has more firepower than the people under its rule.

As hard as it may be to believe: cops are civilians too. There's nothing special about the badge that elevates police officers over the common man or any reason why they should be put on pedestals. When the officer goes home at the end of his shift he is still a human being susceptible to all the desires, impulses, temptations and conflicting morals that affect the rest of us. Contrary to popular belief, the average police officer is not an expert marksman yet we trust them over most gun enthusiasts to operate high-caliber weaponry.

Sometimes, police officers do bad things like drive drunk, beat their spouse, or mow down an entire party with their agency-issued AR-15 for nothing more than being called a worthless pig.

If a gun club wants to deny its city a resource that it in turn wants to deny the rest of the population by way of magazine restrictions and bans on scary looking "assault" weapons they are well within their right and it is not at all "taking it out" on the police. They will still go about doing their jobs and collecting their paychecks. This is a message aimed squarely at the city for passing worthless gun-control legislation.


I would like to point out a few things on both sides of this coin. There is nothing in the article that says it was an agency issued AR 15. If the weapon was issued by the force it would most likely be a select fire M4 (select fire means the user gets to choose between semi-auto AND full-auto and a TRUE assault weapon) as governments rarely issue semi-auto only AR15's. The weapon was most likely his privately owned weapon (yes I know smaller police forces allow private weapons to be used as patrol weapons, but if that were the case then he still bought the rifle himself).

I would also argue that officers have had formal training in the use of firearms and SHOULD be more proficient than the average civilian. Fine outfits like New York Police Department (NYPD), LAPD, and Portland PD have a slightly higher hit percentage than untrained people. That being said these stats are mostly for pistols, but here goes. Between those 3 departments, the hit percentage spans from about 27%-38%. If you ask the medical field about hits from pistols they will tell you that it takes about 2.5 bullets on average to kill someone, while rifles usually kill in less than 2 bullets (I think it is less than 1.3 bullets but I dont know if I can state that as a fact).

The math part for you magazine limitation people. If I practice a lot, or receive formal training I can expect to hit the bad guy 1/3 of the time. If it takes 2-3 hits to kill one bad guy then my 10 round magazine is good for 1, and MAYBE 2 bad guys. The average street mugging involves 2 or more bad guys with 5 being uncommon but not rare. The average home invasion is usually 2-3 people. The average mob in hurricane Katrina was between 5-15 people. The LA Riots I imagine were a lot more like the English riots with mobs above 10 people and sometimes over 30.

Now for the part where we agree
Most officers do not train more than once a year, and are rarely more proficient with their firearms than someone who goes to the range once a month (even if that person has not had any formal training).

Bottom line: police and civilians need to practice, and need more than 10 bullets.
 
2013-01-29 06:00:53 PM  
Because obviously it's the cops who write the gun.laws.
 
2013-01-29 06:03:06 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: PsiChick

...but we can all agree a police officer will require different tools to do their job (NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE EVER) than, say, your IT guy, right?

Of course. Firearms aren't much use in IT save tangentially.

That being said, the IT guy and the cop should both have access to (or ability to own, rather) the same weapons. Not for their jobs, but both as civilians. That the cop might use his on the job is, ultimately, unimportant; fighting criminals is (in theory) part of the job.


If I am going to fix your sink, I need a wrench. If I am going to talk a drunk guy into coming down to a station, I need a course in human interactions of some kind. If I am going to fly to the moon, I need a spaceship.

If I am a police officer, I may very well need a nightstick.

Is that clearer?
 
2013-01-29 06:05:23 PM  

redmid17: I would still dispute your assertion that M-16s should be considered ordnance (outside of the fact that literally no army considers them ordnance). M16s and the like are the staple weapon for infantry units. Cannons never were. There were specialized units handling the cannons. Just because the efficacy of something is better doesn't mean it gets redefined arbitrarily.


I'm not saying that an M16 is ordnance. I'm saying a weapon's use and effect can be considered when deciding whether it falls under 2nd amendment protection. One pull, one bullet, one kill is a good line to draw for what is protected and what is not. Magazine quantity and ugliness should have no bearing on it.
 
2013-01-29 06:07:25 PM  

PsiChick: Facetious_Speciest: PsiChick

...but we can all agree a police officer will require different tools to do their job (NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE EVER) than, say, your IT guy, right?

Of course. Firearms aren't much use in IT save tangentially.

That being said, the IT guy and the cop should both have access to (or ability to own, rather) the same weapons. Not for their jobs, but both as civilians. That the cop might use his on the job is, ultimately, unimportant; fighting criminals is (in theory) part of the job.

If I am going to fix your sink, I need a wrench. If I am going to talk a drunk guy into coming down to a station, I need a course in human interactions of some kind. If I am going to fly to the moon, I need a spaceship.

If I am a police officer, I may very well need a nightstick.

Is that clearer?


I don't have a problem with a cop having a nightstick. So long as I can have one, too.
 
2013-01-29 06:07:27 PM  
PsiChick

If I am going to fix your sink, I need a wrench. If I am going to talk a drunk guy into coming down to a station, I need a course in human interactions of some kind. If I am going to fly to the moon, I need a spaceship.

If I am a police officer, I may very well need a nightstick.

Is that clearer?


Just because you're a plumber doesn't mean I shouldn't keep a wrench around the house. Clearer?
 
2013-01-29 06:10:55 PM  
UseUrHeadFred


I don't understand their reasoning.
I'm not surprised.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. Police unions are often pushing anti gun -and other- legislation. Look at any Bill signing ceremony and you'll see blueshirts lined up by the dozens.

No, they don't sign the laws, but they do have them written and passed.
 
2013-01-29 06:27:20 PM  

davidab: enforcerpsu: morgen_benner: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

I'l bite, though I truly hope I'm feeding a troll:

DC vs Heller ruled that we indeed do have the right to private ownership.

Anyone who tries to tell me the 2nd amendment was referring to a state militia instantly gets labeled as an idiot because the 2nd amendment clearly defines an individual's right to own firearms. This has been beaten to death and that side of the argument needs to stop using it. It makes them look extremely ignorant.

Instead of calling them idiots try pointing out that the supreme court deemed it an individual right (a militia could be just one person after all)

2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson
2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller
2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago
These rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right


Gee, you left off Miller v US (SCOTUS decision in '39) where not only was it agreed that it is an individual right, but the *government* argued that the 2nd only protects military type weapons. In '34, when Miller was busted, the military didn't issue sawed off shotguns or full auto stuff to infantry - the FA was for squad use, etc.
 
2013-01-29 06:45:52 PM  

PsiChick: robbiex0r: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

Why does nobody get this?
Probably the 'b-b-b-but warondrugs!'

Or, you know, police have jobs requiring them to deal with violent nutjobs and just  might need more specialized tools than are available to the general public.

/I do not in any way, shape, or form support police of all people getting their hands on any weapon that is more than a basic pistol, but the argument that they should only be allowed access to civilian weapons because 'they're civilians' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what police do and are.


But I thought the civilians were now unable to get violent weapons?
 
2013-01-29 06:56:29 PM  

robbiex0r: PsiChick: robbiex0r: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

Why does nobody get this?
Probably the 'b-b-b-but warondrugs!'

Or, you know, police have jobs requiring them to deal with violent nutjobs and just  might need more specialized tools than are available to the general public.

/I do not in any way, shape, or form support police of all people getting their hands on any weapon that is more than a basic pistol, but the argument that they should only be allowed access to civilian weapons because 'they're civilians' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what police do and are.

But I thought the civilians were now unable to get violent weapons?


...What? 'Violent weapons' doesn't even mean anything, and if you're referring to gun bans, the states may have passed something but nothing'shiat the nation yet.
 
2013-01-29 06:56:40 PM  

drop: Wayne 985:
We've had both in human history. If you had to choose between the life of a man who had to feed troops or the life of a man who worked the fields, then was castrated and beaten to death because he talked back, I don't doubt for a minute that you would choose the former.
.
Something tells me you're completely ignorant about why this is even in the BoR in the first place. Free hint: It's not talking about some of your buddies from the war getting dinner, hitting the rack in the spare room, getting some breakfast, and then marching off. It's not even talking about repeating the dinner/sleep/breakfast bit 30 or 90 times before the marching bit.


In 1765, the British parliament enacted the first of the Quartering Acts, requiring the American colonies to pay the costs of British soldiers serving in the colonies, and requiring that if the local barracks provided insufficient space, that the colonists provide space for the troops to live in alehouses, inns, and livery stables. After the Boston Tea Party, the Quartering Act of 1774 was enacted; it was one of the Intolerable Acts that pushed the colonies toward revolution. The later Quartering Act authorized British troops to be quartered wherever necessary, including in private homes.[1]

For that reason, the quartering of troops was cited as a grievance in the United States Declaration of Independence

Link

Bad. Still not as bad as a black man having his nuts clipped like a steer.
 
2013-01-29 07:00:56 PM  

i.r.id10t: davidab: enforcerpsu: morgen_benner: macadamnut: BgJonson79: Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Wouldn't the ACLU fall in the same category, then, as a group that defends the Constitution?

The NRA is a trade association for weapons manufacturers. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says nothing about private ownership of firearms.

I'l bite, though I truly hope I'm feeding a troll:

DC vs Heller ruled that we indeed do have the right to private ownership.

Anyone who tries to tell me the 2nd amendment was referring to a state militia instantly gets labeled as an idiot because the 2nd amendment clearly defines an individual's right to own firearms. This has been beaten to death and that side of the argument needs to stop using it. It makes them look extremely ignorant.

Instead of calling them idiots try pointing out that the supreme court deemed it an individual right (a militia could be just one person after all)

2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson
2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller
2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago
These rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right

Gee, you left off Miller v US (SCOTUS decision in '39) where not only was it agreed that it is an individual right, but the *government* argued that the 2nd only protects military type weapons. In '34, when Miller was busted, the military didn't issue sawed off shotguns or full auto stuff to infantry - the FA was for squad use, etc.


Actually it wasn't "agreed." Miller was dead and his defense lawyers didn't show up because of a lack of money. Also it doesn't matter if the guns were squad issued or not, they were still in common use at the time. That's the only threshold that need be broached.
 
2013-01-29 07:10:36 PM  
OnlyM3:I'm not surprised. Police unions are often pushing anti gun -and other- legislation. Look at any Bill signing ceremony and you'll see blueshirts lined up by the dozens. No, they don't sign the laws, but they do have them written and passed.

So the local police were, essentially, co-sponsors of a bill that hurt the business in question? That's a pretty good reason to ban them. I could certainly understand that!
 
2013-01-29 07:11:42 PM  

Keeve: UseUrHeadFred: I don't understand their reasoning.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

I think your first assumption is correct. The gun club is mad at the city council so they're taking it out on the cops. Very misdirected and probably not a smart move.


The city council is mad at the criminals so they're taking it out on the law-abiding citizens. Very misdirected and probably not a smart move.
 
2013-01-29 07:39:38 PM  

justtray: Holocaust Agnostic: justtray: Itstoearly: UseUrHeadFred: I don't understand their reasoning.

This is either a wrongheaded attempt at retribution against "the man", or an attempt to keep police away so they can continue using banned weapons without getting busted. In the former case, Police are enforcers of the law, not legislators. In the latter, simply banning them will not prevent them from enforcing the law.

The phrase "sworn duty" has meaning. If the law is wrong hold the legislators responsible, not the police.

They aren't trying to get away with something, they are making a point. One that seems to be lost on you...

What point are they making?

I really want to hear someone successfully argue why police shouldnt be better armed than civilians without using petty semantic arguments. (the gun nut favorite go-to)

Because they are civillians themselves and in no sense need to outgun the public to perform their duties.

I said without semantic argument. Police are law enforcement. Civilians are NOT.


You said "without petty semantic argument". The argument that police are civilians is certainly not petty semantics. Tools like you enable a police state.
 
2013-01-29 07:47:31 PM  

RickN99: The city council is mad at the criminals so they're taking it out on the law-abiding citizens. Very misdirected and probably not a smart move.


They might want to rethink their Kumbayah attitude towards methadone clinics and consider enforcing the laws against peddling Heroin. Perhaps going after the Rx writing Doctors who keep the junkies in a steady supply of Oxicodon. They might want to keep the morons off the streets. At least before some law-abiding citizen pops a real cap from a black powder weapon into the skull of a knife wielding junkie.
Just a thought. I carry concealed legally in Burlington and don't like having a Bronx-Hoodie waving a blade in my face. But open up the molly coddling "ease your ass" out of addiction centers, and you might as well put up a billboard at the border stating that we lerve junkies. Come up and steal our stuff.
 
2013-01-29 08:09:03 PM  
Two gun threads in a row now where the gun nut I was talking to just gave up and bugged out with his tail between his legs.

Huh.... one more and I think I have a trend.
 
2013-01-29 08:10:14 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Huh.... one more and I think I have a trend.


You can be a target holder at the range.
 
2013-01-29 08:12:58 PM  
I wonder how many of those sticking up for "The Man" in this thread hate cops when it comes to drug busts and OWS protests.
 
2013-01-29 08:15:54 PM  
Naturally all responsible gun owners are agasnt the police.

Jeez.

muck4doo: I wonder how many of those sticking up for "The Man" in this thread hate cops when it comes to drug busts and OWS protests.


Probably the same number who think abiding by the law is involved in any way.
 
2013-01-29 08:16:52 PM  

mongbiohazard: dittybopper: Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.

This.

Damn right, that.

Also, the dumbass tag is misplaced here. Should have been a hero tag.


Agreed on all counts, but this is Fark, where saying that the Second Amendment (one of ten such Amendments in the Bill of Rights) is a right and not a privilege is liable to get you labeled with the nickname "Lanza."

militia: : the whole body of able-bodied male [and female] citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service (and female added by me because this is the 21st century. With women now openly approved to serve in combat roles, it's only a matter of time before we are required to register for selective service just like many other countries in the world--a law which I would endorse)

infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

encroach: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

All definitions from Merriam-Webster. Since Webster came of age during the American Revolution and wrote his dictionary for the purpose of codifying American English, I tend to stick to his definitions when defining words in the Constitution, as I'm of the opinion that Noah Webster is the definitive source for such definitions.

"...rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges. ...sooner or later the people in this country are going to realize the government doesn't give a fark about them. the government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply doesn't give a fark about you. It's interested in it's own power. That's the only thing...keeping it, and expanding wherever possible." --George Carlin

See, the problem with the anti-gun lobby (and no, I do not support civilians--and that includes police--being able to possess automatic weapons, but I do support civilians being able to possess semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Most weapons the anti-gun lobby calls 'assault' weapons are semi-automatic rifles that fire only one single round at a time and simply look scary) is that they are of the opinion that the Second and Fourth Amendments are privileges, but the other Eight are rights... so long as those Amendments are being applied to them. When someone says, "wait a minute, I have the right to speak here, too," then the other Amendments become privileges as well.

The Constitution is either the "supreme law of the land," or it is not. If it is, it applies to everyone--whether you/we agree with them or not. Jeeze, even President Obama said the other day that the anti-gun lobby needs to listen a lot more than it does (after former President Clinton publicly warned him to take care on the issue of gun control). Likewise, the pro-gun, 2nd Amendment side of the issue needs to shut up and listen more than it does. A compromise can be found and it should be, because no law-abiding responsible person wants another Columbine, Sideshow Bob, or Sideshow Bob Redux: Sandy Hook.
 
2013-01-29 08:17:11 PM  

Fubini: This makes sense to me, at least a little.

I'm one of those crazy people who thinks that police and law enforcement should be considered civilians and subject to the same weapons restrictions as the rest of us. That is, if the general public is prohibited from owning "assault weapons" then the police ought to as well, and if we're only able to buy fully automatic weapons that were registered before 1986 then so should they.

Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement.


I agree.  I also cannot support thinking that suggests somehow cops are more responsible gun owners and therefor should have special rights.
 
2013-01-29 08:17:23 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Two gun threads in a row now where the gun nut I was talking to just gave up and bugged out with his tail between his legs.

Huh.... one more and I think I have a trend.


I mean he was being completely sarcastic and patronizing the entire time. I believe he called himself a robot at one point. Pretty sure the answer is he's just trolling you given how pro-gun he has been in other threads.
 
Displayed 50 of 536 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report