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.

•       •       •

24490 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2013 at 12:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:    more»

536 Comments   (+0 »)
 Paginated (1/page) Single page Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML Show posts from ignored users
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Good. I was at the Smuggler's Notch Primitive Biathlon this last weekend, that's up in that area.

I do not understand why the plan is controversial. As an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime, police will no longer need to remain proficient with firearms.

Is this that town council that declared Bush a war criminal? They may be a tad big for their britches.

And the argument over federal, state, and local law continues unabated.

BTW:  Good book if you have a chance to pick it up.  Fellow alum. -- The Thirteen American Arguments.

I was expecting the ban to be on 'liberals.' This surprised me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

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.

North Hollywood Shootout.

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!'

guns

guns

GUNS!

GUNS!!

GUUUUNSSS!!!

I REFUSE TO RESPECT YOUR AUTHORITAH!!!!!

It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.

Would they consider letting cops train with knives?

Antimatter: 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.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

No they are not the same as the military. State/Municipal/County =/= Federal

Antimatter: 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.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

Look up the phrase posse cometatus, and the difference between Title 10 and Title 32 federal employees.

Burlington can't do this without changing the state law by the way, and the Democrat in charge withdrew a gun control bill already because he knows it has no chance. Burlington can choke on a dick.

Good! It's about time we started standing up to the TYRANNY of these government thugs. The next time you have to deal with one of these Statist Pigs, I want you to remain calm, cool, and colllected, but be ready to exercise your right to protect yourself as laid forth by the Founding Fathers to prevent this type of tyranny at the hands of "lawmen".

Or, you could just take it right to the BROWNSHIRTS and don't wait for them to come for you. The Tyrants never expected this. I bet 0bamma was quaking in his loafers when he heard about this True Patriot.

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.

MadCat221: 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.

North Hollywood Shootout.

Automatic weapons wouldn't have made a difference vs. semi-automatic. They were wearing body armor. There's a reason they asked the nearest gun shop for hunting rifles.

MadCat221: 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.

North Hollywood Shootout.

Waitaminute: which state has that whole thing about "Live free or die"???

Antimatter: 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.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

Does that mean the clerk at the DMV can buy an automatic rifle?

Antimatter: They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

No. Not at all.

But thanks for playing. Here's a copy of our home game.

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.

They've tried this, with mixed results.

Criminals will just be better armed and organized.

Thunderpipes: It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.

Burlington is not as pro gun as the rest of Vermont. Burlington is also the most liberal spot in Vermont.

That's actually a pretty measured response, dislike what the government does? Boycott it in a sense.

It's the owner's business; they are well within their rights to disallow any person from the range that they want to.

How many jobs would a comprehensive ban cost? Lots. Not only in the manufacturering sector, but also the retail gun industry. It would end up costing each state millions in hunting permits; FFL fees, ect. It would also destroy the farm game bird industry.

North Hollywood Shootout.

Yea, and that one guy with a tank too! All cops should be armed with anti-tank mines and Javelin missile launchers.

I don't think there'd be an issue with transporting your firearm from home to the shoot. I believe a Federal law already exists that allows one to transport a firearm, even if it's banned in that locality, without fear of reprisal or seizure.

"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

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...

This will teach them cops to make laws we don't like!

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.

Itstoearly: Thunderpipes: It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.

Burlington is not as pro gun as the rest of Vermont. Burlington is also the most liberal spot in Vermont.

Burlington leadership you mean. The average Burlington resident is not so different. But... the thousands of college kids, progressive city leaders are way out of whack. The more reasonable Burlington people just don't make much noise. They showed up at city hall to protest the gun ban though.

Just have the range call 911, there wont be a cop there for hours!

FreetardoRivera: 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.

[ametia.files.wordpress.com image 470x325]

Not that I don't get your point, but those are fire fighters in your picture.

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.

the city doesn't have its own range, so they had been using the club range for their (required) training/qualifying....the City said they wanted to ban "assault" weapons and magazines, so the club said "don't expect us to allow you to use our facilities then"..

North Hollywood Shootout.

Yea, and that one guy with a tank too! All cops should be armed with anti-tank mines and Javelin missile launchers.

And amphedamines! No civilian has any need for assault drugs.

Cythraul: I was expecting the ban to be on 'liberals.' This surprised me.

Vermont's a very liberal state that's also very firearms friendly. That is, Vermont understands people can have nice things without bowing down to totalitarianism.

Burlington cops are pretty thuggish by the way. Taser happy.

While you shouldn't really ever use it and it seems to be the source of most of this website's awfulness you really can't use the standard left/right paradigm in Vermont.

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.

There would need to be transportation exemptions, or you're violating federal interstate commerce laws.

/Only useful thing i have to say

FreetardoRivera: While you shouldn't really ever use it and it seems to be the source of most of this website's awfulness you really can't use the standard left/right paradigm in Vermont.

This is probably the best comment in the entire thread

utahraptor2: IRQ12: MadCat221: ...
North Hollywood Shootout.

Yea, and that one guy with a tank too! All cops should be armed with anti-tank mines and Javelin missile launchers.

And amphedamines! No civilian has any need for assault drugs.

Cythraul: I was expecting the ban to be on 'liberals.' This surprised me.

Vermont's a very liberal state that's also very firearms friendly. That is, Vermont understands people can have nice things without bowing down to totalitarianism.

Umm, no. Vermont has the worst economic outlook of any state. Highest overall tax rate. Rich people, trust funders, complete welfare people make up the bulk. It has been downhill here for a long time. We look good on paper, but it is because we are childless older people for the most part. ONly reason some people have nice things is they got wealth somewhere else and moved here, or mommy and daddy gave them a trust, or they get loads of free stuff.

Even Shumlin is coming around to the idea that we can't keep the welfare state up much longer.

Big Man On Campus: 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.

They've tried this, with mixed results.
[www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211]

Criminals will just be better armed and organized.

You mean criminals will ignore not only gun control laws and illegally modify weapons into contraband machine guns, but will also ignore laws prohibiting armed robbery, attempted murder, and a whole slew of other laws barring violent criminal acts?

Seriously? Criminals ignored laws and broke them anyway? Gun control laws didn't stop them?

WOW. I need to rethink things after that revelation...

odinsposse: Antimatter: 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.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

Does that mean the clerk at the DMV can buy an automatic rifle?

Yes, I think it does. Also, the people driving the plow trucks for the county. They get fun guns too. And anybody on public aid...

KIA: Waitaminute: which state has that whole thing about "Live free or die"???

New Hampshire.

Dimensio: I do not understand why the plan is controversial. As an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime, police will no longer need to remain proficient with firearms.

Thank God you've shot down the often repeated argument that an assault weapon ban would eliminate violent crime. I've been getting tired of hearing that repeated over and over by... wait, who said that again?

/ Not for the ban or stupid arguments.

What if the police officers are Sovereign Citizens? Would that entitle them to shootin' range entry?

I'm not surprised. Those people up there make the cheapest coats I've ever seen.

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)

Keeve: 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.

If you don't think it through, yes, this could be seen as taking it out on the cops. However, it's not. There are two major points:

1 - They are actively attacking the wallet of a local business. That business should be allowed to show them that there are consequences to their actions.
2 - The cops really won't be impacted all that much. What will happen, however, is that the city will spend more money to either have them train somewhere else (transportation, increased range fees, or both).

Voting with one's wallet is an accepted way of protest. This is a good take on that concept.

Real assault weapons have been illegal since 1934.

All guns are deadly. So are cars. So is fire. So are many other things that people have a right to use.

Is America's higher gun violence statistics caused by video games? Doesn't look that way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-cou nt ry-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-an d-gun-murders/

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly.  Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Big_Fat_Liar: odinsposse: Antimatter: 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.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

Does that mean the clerk at the DMV can buy an automatic rifle?

Yes, I think it does. Also, the people driving the plow trucks for the county. They get fun guns too. And anybody on public aid...

I am an employee of a university whose funding is only partially provided by the state. My salary is public information, however. Am I entitled to fully automatic firearms?

Thunderpipes: It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.

we should ban people

Dimensio: I do not understand why the plan is controversial. As an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime, police will no longer need to remain proficient with firearms.

oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

HeWhoHasNoName: Big Man On Campus: 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.

They've tried this, with mixed results.
[www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211]

Criminals will just be better armed and organized.

You mean criminals will ignore not only gun control laws and illegally modify weapons into contraband machine guns, but will also ignore laws prohibiting armed robbery, attempted murder, and a whole slew of other laws barring violent criminal acts?

Seriously? Criminals ignored laws and broke them anyway? Gun control laws didn't stop them?

WOW. I need to rethink things after that revelation...

Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

Bomb Head Mohammed: Dimensio: I do not understand why the plan is controversial. As an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime, police will no longer need to remain proficient with firearms.

oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

Appeal to authority is logically fallacious. President Reagan advocating a prohibition upon a rarely criminally misused class of firearms based upon the presence of characteristics that do not affect firearm function is not validation of such a prohibition.

thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: I do not understand why the plan is controversial. As an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime, police will no longer need to remain proficient with firearms.

Thank God you've shot down the often repeated argument that an assault weapon ban would eliminate violent crime. I've been getting tired of hearing that repeated over and over by... wait, who said that again?

/ Not for the ban or stupid arguments.

He's rocking their favorite strawman, perfect solution fallacy, still. Doesnt get more dishonest than that.

Oh wow. My club is in the news.

justtray: thurstonxhowell: Dimensio: I do not understand why the plan is controversial. As an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime, police will no longer need to remain proficient with firearms.

Thank God you've shot down the often repeated argument that an assault weapon ban would eliminate violent crime. I've been getting tired of hearing that repeated over and over by... wait, who said that again?

/ Not for the ban or stupid arguments.

He's rocking their favorite strawman, perfect solution fallacy, still. Doesnt get more dishonest than that.

An accusation of dishonesty from an established liar is hypocritical.

justtray:Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

snowjack: Real assault weapons have been illegal since 1934.

All guns are deadly. So are cars. So is fire. So are many other things that people have a right to use.

Is America's higher gun violence statistics caused by video games? Doesn't look that way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-cou nt ry-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-an d-gun-murders/

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly.  Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Why focus on total violence when homicide is what really matters?

Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

Argument defeated.

kombat_unit: justtray:Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

Civilian disarmament advocates (as justtray is) are often incapable of recognizing that while murder causes direct harm, firearm possession does not.

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.

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)

Police are civilians.

Where is the HERO tag?

Dimensio: Big_Fat_Liar: odinsposse: Antimatter: 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.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

Does that mean the clerk at the DMV can buy an automatic rifle?

Yes, I think it does. Also, the people driving the plow trucks for the county. They get fun guns too. And anybody on public aid...

I am an employee of a university whose funding is only partially provided by the state. My salary is public information, however. Am I entitled to fully automatic firearms?

That's a tough one. I think everyone can agree you are at least eligible for three round burst. We'll have to set up a committee to determine if we can go any further than that.

kombat_unit: justtray:Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

You dont know what irony is either then. How is me pointing out the failed logic irony? That was exactly the argument i quoted.

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.

justtray: Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Murder deprives others of their natural rights. Ownership of weapons or drugs or whatever else, by itself, does not. This is the distinction.

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 police ARE civilians.

They are not soldiers. Your local town police agency does not report to the Pentagon. Your county Sheriff's office is not a military installation.

The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

justtray: snowjack: Real assault weapons have been illegal since 1934.

All guns are deadly. So are cars. So is fire. So are many other things that people have a right to use.

Is America's higher gun violence statistics caused by video games? Doesn't look that way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-cou nt ry-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-an d-gun-murders/

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly.  Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Why focus on total violence when homicide is what really matters?

Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

Argument defeated.

Which only proves what everbody already knows. Some people need to be shot.

What the heck VT. That state likely has the lowest crime rates in the country. Lowest gun crime too I think i read. They've got bigger fish to fry. Actually they don't. Other than actual fish.

It's like when CA was talking about ban high cal rifles their departments used, even though they had been used in zero crimes. Barrett said we will no longer service your rifles, or sell you any more rifles or parts.

Dave Lister: justtray: Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Murder deprives others of their natural rights. Ownership of weapons or drugs or whatever else, by itself, does not. This is the distinction.

Wtf are you talking about? Is this the kind of cognitive dissonance required to keep believing in illogical arguments?

Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

It's true. I have several classic and modern nukes. All NRA endorsed. My neighbors are very polite.

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)

I don't know what is going on in their brains but I might assume that this was done as a way of standing up to government as a whole.

Not everyone views police, firemen, soldiers, etc as some separate entity simply doing their duty while the wrong is only caused by guys in suits behind desks. By putting pressure across the board in different ways they might have more success in achieving their goals.

Of course they could also just be tards. Flip a coin.

Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

The Brady Center will be unhappy until all civilian owned firearms are confiscated and all current civilian firearm owners are imprisoned and their assets seized by the government.

/My statement is as accurate as yours.

In this thread: Gun Nuts, States' Rights Nuts, Sovereign Citizen Nuts, Libertarian Nuts, 2nd Amendment Nuts, Anti-police Nuts, and Wing Nuts. None of whom have any balls.

/should have used the ironic tag instead.

cubic_spleen: In this thread: Gun Nuts, States' Rights Nuts, Sovereign Citizen Nuts, Libertarian Nuts, 2nd Amendment Nuts, Anti-police Nuts, and Wing Nuts. None of whom have any balls.

/should have used the ironic tag instead.

Have you any rational commentary to offer, or do you use the "poisoning the well" fallacy due to an awareness of endorsement of a position without any intellectual merit?

Thunderpipes: Umm, no. Vermont has the worst economic outlook of any state. Highest overall tax rate. Rich people, trust funders, complete welfare people make up the bulk. It has been downhill here for a long time. We look good on paper, but it is because we are childless older people for the most part. ONly reason some people have nice things is they got wealth somewhere else and moved here, or mommy and daddy gave them a trust, or they get loads of free stuff.

I personally know two people who took picked up from Virginia and relocated to Vermont to take IT job opportunities. Considering the state only has 626,000 people - about the same number of people as Fairfax County, Virginia, it makes sense that state taxes are a bit elevated.

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.

Words have meanings for a reason. There is a reason the  Posse Comitatus Act was passed in the US. Military and police are two separate things. They exist at separate levels of government. The county coroner might be an elected official, but he is still a civilian. The Chief of Police and Sheriff are likewise civilians.

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.

What's semantic about it? They are a civillian institution that exists to maintain public order. They aren't a damned occupying army.

Dimensio: Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

The Brady Center will be unhappy until all civilian owned firearms are confiscated and all current civilian firearm owners are imprisoned and their assets seized by the government.

/My statement is as accurate as yours.

Hell I'm Canadian so I just get to watch from a distance and be amused/scared/sad/giddy/horrified. Cheaper than the movies!

Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Bomb Head Mohammed: oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

Anyone calling for a ban on assault weapons doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence, given how astoundingly rare their use in crime actually is.

KIA: Waitaminute: which state has that whole thing about "Live free or die"???

New England state fail :-P

Dimensio: Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

The Brady Center will be unhappy until all civilian owned firearms are confiscated and all current civilian firearm owners are imprisoned and their assets seized by the government.

/My statement is as accurate as yours.

Actually, your statement is a LOT closer to the truth. They want zero guns, but they'll take what they can get. If you disobey a law they manage to help get passed, does anyone doubt the proponents of that law would oppose sending your law-breaking ass to prison?

This thread is nothing but gun rights advocates misinterpreting the posts of other gun rights advocates and presuming every post without their name on it is a anti-gun rant before reading the thread.
Hold your fire boys, I think them's friendlies.

dabbletech: I'm not surprised. Those people up there make the cheapest coats I've ever seen.

Came for a Coat Factory reference. Leaves satisfied.

justtray: snowjack: Real assault weapons have been illegal since 1934.

All guns are deadly. So are cars. So is fire. So are many other things that people have a right to use.

Is America's higher gun violence statistics caused by video games? Doesn't look that way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-cou nt ry-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-an d-gun-murders/

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly.  Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Why focus on total violence when homicide is what really matters?

Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

Argument defeated.

How about asking yourself this: "why don't we have 4x as many violent crimes as the UK does?"

OR

"What condition exists in the UK that makes criminals more likely to commit a violent crime against another person than here in the United States?"

Believe it or not, a thug wants to continue being a thug even after he commits his crimes. If committing those crimes meant a significant chance he might not be able to continue his career in thuggery, he might have a moment of pause to consider his actions in advance.

Maybe you believe all we need to concentrate on is murder. Perhaps you're okay with people getting raped, robbed and having the shiat beaten out of them...all as long as someone doesn't die. Problem is, most of the people that die in the United States by gun violence are, themselves, criminals. Gang and drug violence is where the majority of firearm related deaths happen here.

Anyway, most of the people who get raped, robbed and put into the hospital probably don't agree with you.

dr-shotgun: Bomb Head Mohammed: oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

Anyone calling for a ban on assault weapons doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence, given how astoundingly rare their use in crime actually is.

Most art history majors never took a college-level course in stats, so they wouldn't know how it works.

Why does justtray hate dictionaries?

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 the police aren't in an arms race with civilians?

Big Man On Campus

Hold your fire boys, I think them's friendlies.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet?

Why? Because they hurt your feelings or something? Get over it, pussy.

Thunderpipes: It is funny, we are weird here in VT. Most people are pro gun, but most people are incredibly left wing on everything else.

Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

We have hardly any gun crime here. Most of it is from thugs from NYC coming here selling drugs. We also have very loose gun laws. No concealed permits needed, open carry. VT is a good example of gun laws not meaning a damn thing, it is the people who make a difference. Mostly wealthy hippies and lazy welfare bums here living large.

I concur

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

Bullshiat:

And I got this in my e-mail today

A Lesson to be Learned on the Anniversary of Wounded Knee
December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.

Didn't bother to verify

Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

.
If we all had access the bomb may have never been invented.

dr-shotgun: Bomb Head Mohammed: oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

Anyone calling for a ban on assault weapons doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence, given how astoundingly rare their use in crime actually is.

While some assault weapons ban advocates are genuinely ignorant, others are aware of the statistical rarity of their criminal misuse but advocate a ban because they believe civilian firearm ownership to be abhorrent in general and are attempting to use such a ban as a starting point for total civilian disarmament. "Conservative" pundit Charles Krauthammer actually endorsed the "assault weapons ban" of 1994 as a "good idea" because of an expressed belief that the citizenry of the United States of America eventually needed to be fully disarmed.

Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

What, you never have fart wars with your wife?

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)

OK, here we go.....
The Police are NOT required to protect you. That is an understood truth. The laws and charter for their service bear this assertion out.
Hence, they need no firepower greater than the populous at large (John Q Public).
They do NOT receive training that is in any way equal to the armed forces.
They are not afforded the latitude in their duties that the armed forces are given.
(There is rarely, if ever, a need for a soldier or a Marine to file a report after killing an enemy. The police must always file and undergo investigation).
So, if what I have read many times over is fair ("only trained military people should have these guns") and the police are none of them, then they should not have anything the public is not entitled to possess.

ZMugg: KIA: Waitaminute: which state has that whole thing about "Live free or die"???

New Hampshire.

we should ban new hampshire

Holocaust Agnostic: 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.

What's semantic about it? They are a civillian institution that exists to maintain public order. They aren't a damned occupying army.

I see why so many people get mad in the George Zimmerman threads now. This concept that police are equal to civilians is amazing. How do you remain so willfully obtuse?

Is clearly not about not wanting police to have superior firepower. Its about trying to get someone to say, "police have to have it," so then you can say, "if they do we do too!" And that argument is just never going to gain traction amongst non gun nuts.

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?

craig328: Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

.
Wouldn't homicide be a subset of the violent crime category?

MadCat221: 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.

North Hollywood Shootout.

What about it? The police had to borrow rifles from a local gun store. If they had deer rifles in their trunks, as was common practice decades ago, they would have made short work of those two. The type of rifles commonly used to hunt big game would have readily penetrated the body armor they used.

The point is, if the police want AR-15's, that's fine, so long as non-law enforcement civilians also get to own them. Parity of force, and all that.

I drunk what: ZMugg: KIA: Waitaminute: which state has that whole thing about "Live free or die"???

New Hampshire.

we should ban new hampshire

Woohoo, no more federal income tax!

Lamoille Valley Fish and Game Club

dr-shotgun: Bomb Head Mohammed: oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

Anyone calling for a ban on assault weapons doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence, given how astoundingly rare their use in crime actually is.

Go ahead and compare rifle homicides as a percentage of total homicides to total rifles as a percentage of guns.

Someone doesn't understand statistics, and its you.

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.

Who's getting all semantic now? You just destroyed your own argument.

By the way, you're leaving off the highly inconvenient (for you) prefatory "civilian" - i.e, civilian law enforcement. As in not military. Which is why the military branches have their own internal law enforcement system that applies to them, separate from the civilian law enforcement system, and why the military is barred from civilian law enforcement activity by way of posse comitatus.

Tell me again, does your local sheriff get orders from NORCOM by way of the Pentagon and the Dept. of Defense?

Does your local constabulary receive combat pay and military retiree benefits?

Are local riot cops where you live bound by General Orders, ROE, and reprimanded every time they employ CS, CN or pepper spray chemical weapons on civilians and non-combatants in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Convention?

C'mon, semantics matter here. You opened this can of worms.

Thunderpipes: Burlington Free Press and other local news outlets didn't seem to report this story, had to come from a damn national news outlet?

Actually, I heard about it over a week ago. From the Burlington Free Press.

david_gaithersburg: Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

.
If we all had access the bomb may have never been invented.

HeWhoHasNoName: 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.

Who's getting all semantic now? You just destroyed your own argument.

By the way, you're leaving off the highly inconvenient (for you) prefatory "civilian" - i.e, civilian law enforcement. As in not military. Which is why the military branches have their own internal law enforcement system that applies to them, separate from the civilian law enforcement system, and why the military is barred from civilian law enforcement activity by way of posse comitatus.

Tell me again, does your local sheriff get orders from NORCOM by way of the Pentagon and the Dept. of Defense?

Does your local constabulary receive combat pay and military retiree benefits?

Are local riot cops where you live bound by General Orders, ROE, and reprimanded every time they employ CS, CN or pepper spray chemical weapons on civilians and non-combatants in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Convention?

C'mon, semantics matter here. You opened this can of worms.

You're having a battle of wits with an unarmed person...

ronaprhys: I don't think there'd be an issue with transporting your firearm from home to the shoot. I believe a Federal law already exists that allows one to transport a firearm, even if it's banned in that locality, without fear of reprisal or seizure.

I could easily be wrong, but haven't people been arrested and prosecuted in D.C. for exactly this, transporting guns or magazines that violate the city laws though the city limits? Didn't someone in New Jersey go to prison for something akin to this (though, IIRC, his case had some odd complications).

Keeve: 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 gun club doesn't have many options here to protest where the city will feel it. Assuming that they are the only place where the police can practice that's reasonably close by or affordable, they have a legal way to protest that will effect the city bottom line. Now, they either have to find a different facility that may be further away or more expensive or build their own somewhere. The city can choose either to have their ordinance or pay more money out.

What else is he going to do? Write a strongly worded letter?

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

Dimensio: cubic_spleen: In this thread: Gun Nuts, States' Rights Nuts, Sovereign Citizen Nuts, Libertarian Nuts, 2nd Amendment Nuts, Anti-police Nuts, and Wing Nuts. None of whom have any balls.

/should have used the ironic tag instead.

Have you any rational commentary to offer, or do you use the "poisoning the well" fallacy due to an awareness of endorsement of a position without any intellectual merit?

What's your first language?

craig328: justtray: snowjack: Real assault weapons have been illegal since 1934.

All guns are deadly. So are cars. So is fire. So are many other things that people have a right to use.

Is America's higher gun violence statistics caused by video games? Doesn't look that way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-cou nt ry-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-an d-gun-murders/

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly.  Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Why focus on total violence when homicide is what really matters?

Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

Argument defeated.

How about asking yourself this: "why don't we have 4x as many violent crimes as the UK does?"

OR

"What condition exists in the UK that makes criminals more likely to commit a violent crime against another person than here in the United States?"

Believe it or not, a thug wants to continue being a thug even after he commits his crimes ...

Poor deflection.

Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts.

Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though.

Gosling: I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

Wouldn't that be trespassing? Cops aren't above the law, and it's dangerous to think they are.

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.

Gosling

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them.

justtray: craig328: justtray: snowjack: Real assault weapons have been illegal since 1934.

All guns are deadly. So are cars. So is fire. So are many other things that people have a right to use.

Is America's higher gun violence statistics caused by video games? Doesn't look that way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-cou nt ry-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-an d-gun-murders/

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly.  Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Why focus on total violence when homicide is what really matters?

Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

Argument defeated.

How about asking yourself this: "why don't we have 4x as many violent crimes as the UK does?"

OR

"What condition exists in the UK that makes criminals more likely to commit a violent crime against another person than here in the United States?"

Believe it or not, a thug wants to continue being a thug even after he commits ...

Perfect, we ban people!

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.

Then what does the Constitution say? Make sure to cite relevant case law :-D

thurstonxhowell [TotalFark]

Dimensio: I do not understand why the plan is controversial. As an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime, police will no longer need to remain proficient with firearms.

Thank God you've shot down the often repeated argument that an assault weapon ban would eliminate violent crime. I've been getting tired of hearing that repeated over and over by... wait, who said that again?

/ Not for the ban or stupid arguments.

Sarcasm sure gets panties in a bunch

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.

Yup. Robert Peel:

"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

justtray: Is clearly not about not wanting police to have superior firepower. Its about trying to get someone to say, "police have to have it," so then you can say, "if they do we do too!" And that argument is just never going to gain traction amongst non gun nuts.

You've got it backwards: We already have it. The police already have it. It's been that way for decades, and we're fine with it.

Now the government (in this case, a local one) wants to make it so that only the police have it.

Now do you see why we might be a tad upset?

Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

I keep my nuclear warhead strapped to my Harley and it's hardwired to my vital signs.

thurstonxhowell: david_gaithersburg: Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

.
If we all had access the bomb may have never been invented.

This just in: Stupid rednecks who don't understand how the government works are not limited to the South.

Psycoholic_Slag: Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

I keep my nuclear warhead strapped to my Harley and it's hardwired to my vital signs.

Your Snow Crash reference wins you +2 Internets, sir.

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.

calm like a bomb: This just in: Stupid rednecks who don't understand how the government works are not limited to the South.

So, how does the gov't work in this case? Isn't the city council the police's boss?

BgJonson79: Wouldn't that be trespassing? Cops aren't above the law, and it's dangerous to think they are.

It's called commandeering. If the cops NEED to have a facility to train their personnel, and your gun range is the only facility in the area, guess what? Your gun range is now a police training facility.

Representative of the unwashed masses: The NRA won't be happy until you are allowed to have a nuclear warhead in your house. Because mutally assurred destruction is the only way to keep peace.

Only if the police and/or soldiers can.

HeWhoHasNoName: 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.

Who's getting all semantic now? You just destroyed your own argument.

By the way, you're leaving off the highly inconvenient (for you) prefatory "civilian" - i.e, civilian law enforcement. As in not military. Which is why the military branches have their own internal law enforcement system that applies to them, separate from the civilian law enforcement system, and why the military is barred from civilian law enforcement activity by way of posse comitatus.

Tell me again, does your local sheriff get orders from NORCOM by way of the Pentagon and the Dept. of Defense?

Does your local constabulary receive combat pay and military retiree benefits?

Are local riot cops where you live bound by General Orders, ROE, and reprimanded every time they employ CS, CN or pepper spray chemical weapons on civilians and non-combatants in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Convention?

C'mon, semantics matter here. You opened this can of worms.

david_gaithersburg: craig328: Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

.
Wouldn't homicide be a subset of the violent crime category?

Yes. Meaning if a violent crime occurs on you, you're 4x4 = 16 times more likely to be killed by it in the US as opposed to the UK. Wonder why that could be... Anything but the guns im sure

BgJonson79:

You're having a battle of wits with an unarmed person...

Then we'll leave his head on an intellectual pike as a warning to other loudmouthed fools. I'm sick of this virulent, cancerous idiocy and wanton disregard for not only our laws and legal traditions but the principles and logic they were painstakingly built upon. The balance of power and carefully-crafted structures of our constitution and its mechanics were not slapshod together as a conglomeration of suggestions and harebrained ideas, they were assembled from painful experience and paid for dearly.

And now fools like this are running rampant willfully misrepresenting the inherent logic those structures were built upon in an effort to topple the whole thing and build something abhorrent and dangerous in its place.

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.

.
There are 4,000,000 weapons manufactures in the US! Holy farking shiat!

justtray: Go ahead and compare rifle homicides as a percentage of total homicides to total rifles as a percentage of guns.

Someone doesn't understand statistics, and its you.

Oh, you mean the statistics that say roughly 60% of all firearms are long guns, yet long guns (rifles and shotguns) are used in only 8% of firearm crimes?

Data:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

And don't forget, all assault rifles are a mere fraction of overall firearms in the population, yet are used in less than 2% of all firearm crimes. To say nothing of the fact that it isn't as if those murders would disappear; as I said in another thread, it isn't like someone intent on committing a crime is gonna say "I can't have the big evil looking gun I want, so instead of killing this guy, I'm gonna go play xBox."

Oh, and another fun thing to not forget - even though assault rifle sales have been staggeringly massive over the last 5 years (to the tune of about a million ARs and AKs being sold a year), murders with rifles have declined at an even faster rate (a 14% decline in all firearm murders since 2007, while rifle murders have declined 28%).

justtray: snowjack: Real assault weapons have been illegal since 1934.

All guns are deadly. So are cars. So is fire. So are many other things that people have a right to use.

Is America's higher gun violence statistics caused by video games? Doesn't look that way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-cou nt ry-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-an d-gun-murders/

People often quote "gun crime" statistics. But why focus on "gun violence" when what really matters is total violence? Maybe because one can use carefully chosen statistics to mislead? The reason "gun violence" is higher in America is there are more guns. Personally, if someone I love is made a victim of violent crime with any deadly threat, the exact type of threat matters little to me.

From here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-v io lent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
"...there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 - a 67 per cent increase in the past decade - at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population."

ALL GUNS are deadly.  Banning guns that "look scary" is supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Why focus on total violence when homicide is what really matters?

Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do.

Argument defeated.

LOL @ smug conclusion. Our homicide is also 4x higher than in Canada, where guns are legal. And our homicide rate is FAR lower than in many other countries in eastern Europe, middle and south America... one might be drawn to conclude that it's a complex subject and not easily correlated with the presence or absence of guns.

Antimatter: 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.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

No, they're not "same as the military".  Federal, state and local governments are different things with different levels of power and responsibility.  The military is managed by the Federal government and is specifically designed to fight the country's enemies.  Deploying them internally, or turning the local police into a proxy version, makes the citizenry "the enemy".

HeWhoHasNoName: 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.

Who's getting all semantic now? You just destroyed your own argument.

By the way, you're leaving off the highly inconvenient (for you) prefatory "civilian" - i.e, civilian law enforcement. As in not military. Which is why the military branches have their own internal law enforcement system that applies to them, separate from the civilian law enforcement system, and why the military is barred from civilian law enforcement activity by way of posse comitatus.

Tell me again, does your local sheriff get orders from NORCOM by way of the Pentagon and the Dept. of Defense?

Does your local constabulary receive combat pay and military retiree benefits?

Are local riot cops where you live bound by General Orders, ROE, and reprimanded every time they employ CS, CN or pepper spray chemical weapons on civilians and non-combatants in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Convention?

C'mon, semantics matter here. You opened this can of worms.

Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement.

Gosling: BgJonson79: Wouldn't that be trespassing? Cops aren't above the law, and it's dangerous to think they are.

It's called commandeering. If the cops NEED to have a facility to train their personnel, and your gun range is the only facility in the area, guess what? Your gun range is now a police training facility.

Wouldn't that only matter if there was no other land in their jurisdiction for them to build?

Englebert Slaptyback: Gosling

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them.

Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators.

justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: Big Man On Campus: 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.

They've tried this, with mixed results.
[www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211]

Criminals will just be better armed and organized.

You mean criminals will ignore not only gun control laws and illegally modify weapons into contraband machine guns, but will also ignore laws prohibiting armed robbery, attempted murder, and a whole slew of other laws barring violent criminal acts?

Seriously? Criminals ignored laws and broke them anyway? Gun control laws didn't stop them?

WOW. I need to rethink things after that revelation...

Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

What YOU fail to admit is that a person willing to commit murder will do it with what ever means are available to them be it a gun, knife, pillow, shoe lace etc. Ban them all and you will still have people dying at the hands of others. In the end it's the person, not the item that is the problem.
It's eaiser to ban a scary gun than to deal with the real issue of this topic and that is mental illness, the 800 pound gorrila in the room.

"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.

Because laws can never change over time, right genius?

Americans are absolutely amazing to listen to sometimes. They're so fanatical about a document written hundreds of years ago that we might as well consider "Constitutionalism" as a religion.

rufus-t-firefly: Englebert Slaptyback: Gosling

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them.

Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators.

Everything is legal in VT :-)

Gosling: BgJonson79: Wouldn't that be trespassing? Cops aren't above the law, and it's dangerous to think they are.

It's called commandeering. If the cops NEED to have a facility to train their personnel, and your gun range is the only facility in the area, guess what? Your gun range is now a police training facility.

Eminent domain.

"Here's a check for what we say your property is worth...it's ours now."

david_gaithersburg: There are 4,000,000 weapons manufactures in the US! Holy farking shiat!

Much like a political party, its members are not necessarily its constituents.

cig-mkr: And I got this in my e-mail today

A Lesson to be Learned on the Anniversary of Wounded Knee
December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.

Didn't bother to verify

Yeah, it's actually right on. More because it was the Ghost Dance and the Army was afraid of another uprising, so they took pains to get the Indian's guns. They put the Indians in the center of a valley, there was a scuffle and everybody opened up. Plus many in the 7th were Big Horn vets and wanted a little revenge.

The problem is you need to put both sides' actions in the proper context before forwarding it. The Indians were desperate to break out of the reservation system and this was their last gasp. The Army wanted to make sure there were zero incidents as they had succeeded in their goal of putting all the tribes on reservations. They wanted to stop the Ghost Dance. Most Americans would have supported stripping the Indians of their firearms.

I hate it when gun morons on the right cite history like this. They have no idea of the proper context of the situation. Makes me embarrassed to be a gun owner.

dr-shotgun: justtray: Go ahead and compare rifle homicides as a percentage of total homicides to total rifles as a percentage of guns.

Someone doesn't understand statistics, and its you.

Oh, you mean the statistics that say roughly 60% of all firearms are long guns, yet long guns (rifles and shotguns) are used in only 8% of firearm crimes?

Data:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

And don't forget, all assault rifles are a mere fraction of overall firearms in the population, yet are used in less than 2% of all firearm crimes. To say nothing of the fact that it isn't as if those murders would disappear; as I said in another thread, it isn't like someone intent on committing a crime is gonna say "I can't have the big evil looking gun I want, so instead of killing this guy, I'm gonna go play xBox."

Oh, and another fun thing to not forget - even though assault rifle sales have been staggeringly massive over the last 5 years (to the tune of about a million ARs and AKs being sold a year), murders with rifles have declined at an even faster rate (a 14% decline in all firearm murders since 2007, while rifle murders have declined 28%).

.
Careful there. Citing facts on Fark can get one banned for 24 hours.

dittybopper: What about it? The police had to borrow rifles from a local gun store. If they had deer rifles in their trunks, as was common practice decades ago, they would have made short work of those two. The type of rifles commonly used to hunt big game would have readily penetrated the body armor they used.

The point is, if the police want AR-15's, that's fine, so long as non-law enforcement civilians also get to own them. Parity of force, and all that.

And since the police get their power(s) from us, it makes no sense that we can give them something that we don't actually have, which in this case is the ability to posses automatic weapons, scary looking semi-auto, etc.

Perducci: "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.

Because laws can never change over time, right genius?

Americans are absolutely amazing to listen to sometimes. They're so fanatical about a document written hundreds of years ago that we might as well consider "Constitutionalism" as a religion.

Would you really prefer the proletariat's whims dictate what the gov't can do? Even knowing 92% of people are average or dumber?

Eirik: ronaprhys: I don't think there'd be an issue with transporting your firearm from home to the shoot. I believe a Federal law already exists that allows one to transport a firearm, even if it's banned in that locality, without fear of reprisal or seizure.

I could easily be wrong, but haven't people been arrested and prosecuted in D.C. for exactly this, transporting guns or magazines that violate the city laws though the city limits? Didn't someone in New Jersey go to prison for something akin to this (though, IIRC, his case had some odd complications).

That is federal law, and yes, state and city governments have sometimes ignored it, though it has been successfully used to prevent prosecution.

There have been cases, though, where a person was stopped in a state through no fault of their own and was subsequently prosecuted for illegal firearms possession, even though the gun was properly locked up and being transported in accordance with the federal law. There was a guy whose airline flight was diverted to Newark, NJ for a mechanical problem and he was subsequently arrested for possessing a firearm because he got his properly checked firearm from baggage claim.

Perducci: "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.

Because laws can never change over time, right genius?

Americans are absolutely amazing to listen to sometimes. They're so fanatical about a document written hundreds of years ago that we might as well consider "Constitutionalism" as a religion.

A process exists for changing the Constitution. Until that process is followed, however, the Constitution stands as it is.

HeWhoHasNoName: BgJonson79:

You're having a battle of wits with an unarmed person...

Then we'll leave his head on an intellectual pike as a warning to other loudmouthed fools. I'm sick of this virulent, cancerous idiocy and wanton disregard for not only our laws and legal traditions but the principles and logic they were painstakingly built upon. The balance of power and carefully-crafted structures of our constitution and its mechanics were not slapshod together as a conglomeration of suggestions and harebrained ideas, they were assembled from painful experience and paid for dearly.

And now fools like this are running rampant willfully misrepresenting the inherent logic those structures were built upon in an effort to topple the whole thing and build something abhorrent and dangerous in its place.

Now THIS is ironic coming from someone who has to rely on a 4 year old conservative activist, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, soon to be repealed supreme court decision to have any argument whatsoever.

rufus-t-firefly

Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators.

Yes. And?

(I didn't say they would be forced to leave, just that they would not be customers of the range.)

Perducci: Americans are absolutely amazing to listen to sometimes. They're so fanatical about a document written hundreds of years ago that we might as well consider "Constitutionalism" as a religion.

Yes. Some of us actually consider the Constitution as far more important than religion.

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.

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Though the streams are swollin'
Keep them doggies Trollin', rawhide

gja: OK, here we go.....
The Police are NOT required to protect you. That is an understood truth. The laws and charter for their service bear this assertion out.
Hence, they need no firepower greater than the populous at large (John Q Public).
They do NOT receive training that is in any way equal to the armed forces.
They are not afforded the latitude in their duties that the armed forces are given.
(There is rarely, if ever, a need for a soldier or a Marine to file a report after killing an enemy. The police must always file and undergo investigation).
So, if what I have read many times over is fair ("only trained military people should have these guns") and the police are none of them, then they should not have anything the public is not entitled to possess.

lol wut?

Perducci: "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.

Because laws can never change over time, right genius?

Americans are absolutely amazing to listen to sometimes. They're so fanatical about a document written hundreds of years ago that we might as well consider "Constitutionalism" as a religion.

Well, guess what: that document is the basis for our nation and is the fundamental principles upon which our society is based. Don't like it? Don't live here. I don't come to YOUR farking country and tell YOU how to live, do I?

BgJonson79: rufus-t-firefly: Englebert Slaptyback: Gosling

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them.

Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators.

Everything is legal in VT :-)

They can always make sure every car there is current on its registration and inspection.

And they can run plates to make sure there aren't any cars registered to felons parked at this gun range.

Perducci: "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.

Because laws can never change over time, right genius?

Americans are absolutely amazing to listen to sometimes. They're so fanatical about a document written hundreds of years ago that we might as well consider "Constitutionalism" as a religion.

Has the law been changed? I don't remember reading about any amendments to the Constitution since 1992 or so.

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.

Words to live by. End thread.

dittybopper: justtray: Is clearly not about not wanting police to have superior firepower. Its about trying to get someone to say, "police have to have it," so then you can say, "if they do we do too!" And that argument is just never going to gain traction amongst non gun nuts.

You've got it backwards: We already have it. The police already have it. It's been that way for decades, and we're fine with it.

Now the government (in this case, a local one) wants to make it so that only the police have it.

Now do you see why we might be a tad upset?

Why are you responding to an outright lying troll?

macadamnut: david_gaithersburg: There are 4,000,000 weapons manufactures in the US! Holy farking shiat!

Much like a political party, its members are not necessarily its constituents.

.
^^^^^^
Ok, that made me laugh.

kyrg: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: Big Man On Campus: 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.

They've tried this, with mixed results.
[www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211]

Criminals will just be better armed and organized.

You mean criminals will ignore not only gun control laws and illegally modify weapons into contraband machine guns, but will also ignore laws prohibiting armed robbery, attempted murder, and a whole slew of other laws barring violent criminal acts?

Seriously? Criminals ignored laws and broke them anyway? Gun control laws didn't stop them?

WOW. I need to rethink things after that revelation...

Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

What YOU fail to admit is that a person willing to commit murder will do it with what ever means are available to them be it a gun, knife, pillow, shoe lace etc. Ban them all and you will still have people dying at the hands of others. In the end it's the person, not the item that is the problem.
It's eaiser to ban a scary gun than to deal with the real issue of this topic and that is mental illness, the 800 pound gorrila in the room.

And the argument you're missing is twofold.

That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that the goal isnt total prevention, but to lower gun related homicide.

Again, argument soundly defeated.

Englebert Slaptyback: rufus-t-firefly

Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators.

Yes. And?

(I didn't say they would be forced to leave, just that they would not be customers of the range.)

I'm pointing out that being dickish to the cops can result in them being VERY strict with their enforcement of the law. Which could end badly for their other customers.

rufus-t-firefly: Englebert Slaptyback: Gosling

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them.

Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators.

Is a judge going to set up shop with them and issue warrants to search every bag and gun case that walks though the parking lot? Or are we going to dispense with both the 2nd and 4th amendment?

BronyMedic: Hey guys, has the argument been made yet that North Hollywood was an isolated incident?

[media.komonews.com image 405x304]

Those guys weren't wearing body armor and using unlawfully converted automatic weapons were they?

justtray: Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement.

Completely irrelevant. Being empowered by established police forces to enforce laws does not make officers super-civilians, and they are by definition not members of the military. Police officers and civilian law enforcement are civilians.

Care to make any other logically implosive arguments?

justtray: Now THIS is ironic coming from someone who has to rely on a 4 year old conservative activist, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, soon to be repealed supreme court decision to have any argument whatsoever.

Heller was willfully ignorant?

Right, because when the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments refer to "the people," they confer an individual right. With the 2nd Amendment though, "the people" is referring to a collective right.

justtray: kyrg: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: Big Man On Campus: 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.

They've tried this, with mixed results.
[www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211]

Criminals will just be better armed and organized.

You mean criminals will ignore not only gun control laws and illegally modify weapons into contraband machine guns, but will also ignore laws prohibiting armed robbery, attempted murder, and a whole slew of other laws barring violent criminal acts?

Seriously? Criminals ignored laws and broke them anyway? Gun control laws didn't stop them?

WOW. I need to rethink things after that revelation...

Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

What YOU fail to admit is that a person willing to commit murder will do it with what ever means are available to them be it a gun, knife, pillow, shoe lace etc. Ban them all and you will still have people dying at the hands of others. In the end it's the person, not the item that is the problem.
It's eaiser to ban a scary gun than to deal with the real issue of this topic and that is mental illness, the 800 pound gorrila in the room.

And the argument you're missing is twofold.

That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that ...

And dropping gun-related homicide is more easily achieved by ending the war on drugs and legalizing them. So, how about you do that?

KIA: Waitaminute: which state has that whole thing about "Live free or die"???

Not Vermont... And I'm not even an American...

Antimatter: 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.

They are government employees, same as the military, honestly.

So are postal workers -- government employees, just like the military. So should mailmen be provided with ICBMs?

BgJonson79: Would you really prefer the proletariat's whims dictate what the gov't can do? Even knowing 92% of people are average or dumber?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to.

rufus-t-firefly

I'm pointing out that being dickish to the cops can result in them being VERY strict with their enforcement of the law. Which could end badly for their other customers.

I wasn't actually disagreeing with you, just pointing out that I hadn't described all potential events. :-)

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Dimensio: ...an "assault weapon ban" will eliminate all violent crime...

Wow, that's a stupid thing to think. You're not very smart, are you?

You are correct. Such a claim is as stupid and irrational as the claim that the presence of a pistol grip on a semi-automatic rifle causes the rifle to be more dangerous and lethal than a rifle of the same model but without a pistol grip.

cervier: KIA: Waitaminute: which state has that whole thing about "Live free or die"???

Not Vermont... And I'm not even an American...

*checks profile*

Yep, Canada. New England is like your Miami.

Please don't take my guns!!! If you do, I'll have nothing to get sexually aroused over!

dr-shotgun: justtray: Now THIS is ironic coming from someone who has to rely on a 4 year old conservative activist, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, soon to be repealed supreme court decision to have any argument whatsoever.

Heller was willfully ignorant?

Right, because when the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments refer to "the people," they confer an individual right. With the 2nd Amendment though, "the people" is referring to a collective right.

Someone apparently also missed civics class the day they explained that Supreme Court rulings cannot be repealed.

AbiNormal: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to.

Lets not be retarded though shall we?

AbiNormal: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to.

So in keeping with the spirit of freedom, and recognizing that the 2nd is a limit on government, arms should be interpreted as broadly as possible, and at least as broadly as speech, assembly, etc. are in the 1st.

Frank N Stein:

How did you get Liberace's hunting knife?

Members of the club would be wise to avoid Burlington.

AbiNormal: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to.

.
It's actually very specific, any and all of them. Se the whole "infringed" thingy at the end.

HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement.

Completely irrelevant. Being empowered by established police forces to enforce laws does not make officers super-civilians, and they are by definition not members of the military. Police officers and civilian law enforcement are civilians.

Care to make any other logically implosive arguments?

It does make them worthy of carrying better weapons than regular civilians though, in my mind. I understand that you disagree. I just think your line of argument here is stupid and dishonest, and I explained why earlier.

AbiNormal: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to.

The 1st doesn't specify what religion won't be infringed, either.

/I'm looking at you, Presbyterians...

stonicus: Please don't take my guns!!! If you do, I'll have nothing to get sexually aroused over!

DRINK!

I consider this to be a replica of the 'penis' obsession many control freaks seem to have, so it definitely warrants a drink in the fark 'gun=penis' drinking game.

Kit Fister: justtray: kyrg: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: Big Man On Campus: 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.

They've tried this, with mixed results.
[www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211]

Criminals will just be better armed and organized.

You mean criminals will ignore not only gun control laws and illegally modify weapons into contraband machine guns, but will also ignore laws prohibiting armed robbery, attempted murder, and a whole slew of other laws barring violent criminal acts?

Seriously? Criminals ignored laws and broke them anyway? Gun control laws didn't stop them?

WOW. I need to rethink things after that revelation...

Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder.

Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already.

What YOU fail to admit is that a person willing to commit murder will do it with what ever means are available to them be it a gun, knife, pillow, shoe lace etc. Ban them all and you will still have people dying at the hands of others. In the end it's the person, not the item that is the problem.
It's eaiser to ban a scary gun than to deal with the real issue of this topic and that is mental illness, the 800 pound gorrila in the room.

And the argument you're missing is twofold.

That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), ...

How about we do both?

justtray: And the argument you're missing is twofold.

That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that the goal isnt total prevention, but to lower gun related homicide.

Again, argument soundly defeated.

Then try to ban handguns. They account for the lion's share of deaths due to firearms (some of them are even unlawful homicides, as opposed to justifiable homicide as self defense, or shootings by law enforcement).

The weapons you are focusing on are involved in such a small percentage of overall deaths, much less violent crime, that they are statistically insignificant. The DoJ itself concluded that their use in crime was so minial before, during, and after the 1994 ban that it was impossible to calculate any discernible impact from the federal ban.

But let's ignore all that for a moment. Let's take a look at the ban Sen. Feinstien has proposed. From the text of that bill, explain to me exactly how any measure of that law will directly prevent violent crime. Find one part of the statute that will directly and demonstrably BLOCK a criminal act.

We'll sit here while you search in vain.

Even the bill's author and sponsors admit it won't do that, or even come close. You are championing supposed benefits of a law that even those who wrote it openly and explicitly admit it is incapable of.

dabbletech: I'm not surprised. Those people up there make the cheapest coats I've ever seen.

I chuckled.

Eirik: rufus-t-firefly: Englebert Slaptyback: Gosling

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them.

Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators.

Is a judge going to set up shop with them and issue warrants to search every bag and gun case that walks though the parking lot? Or are we going to dispense with both the 2nd and 4th amendment?

If they're carrying in plain sight, there's no need for a warrant.

But sure, if a judge wants to sit out there in a lawn chair, we can cover all the bases.

Or the range owners could not be dicks toward law enforcement just because the city council advanced a measure that would still have to be put before voters next year, then be approved by the state legislature.

Besides, if these guys feel like their rights are being violated...isn't that what they keep saying the 2nd Amendment is for - defense against tyranny? Draw on those cops and tell them to stand down in the name of the Bill of Rights. Let us know how that turns out.

dr-shotgun: Bomb Head Mohammed: oh look, a gun nut that doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence. hurry up kids and watch or we'll have to wait until the 12:05 parade for the next one.

"This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals." - Ronald Reagan

Anyone calling for a ban on assault weapons doesn't understand the statistical nature of gun violence, given how astoundingly rare their use in crime actually is.

Gun control advocates don't use statistics or proof. They know that black guns with rails are scary looking and they don't like them. They are convinced that banning black scary guns will solve our violent crime problem even though they aren't even remotely connected.

You can do all this research directly on FBI.gov. You don't have to be a statistician to understand it.

What are we going to ban next? Assault muffins? How about we put scary black rails on a potato and call it an assault potato?

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.

The one time this backfired was the North Hollywood bank robbery shoot- out, where the criminals waaaay outgunned the cops. Not saying it's reason to have cops armed to the teeth, however.

rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: rufus-t-firefly: Englebert Slaptyback: Gosling

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them.

Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators.

Everything is legal in VT :-)

They can always make sure every car there is current on its registration and inspection.

And they can run plates to make sure there aren't any cars registered to felons parked at this gun range.

Wow, getting them on non-criminal non-moving penalties. That's some fine police work there, Lou.

justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement.

Completely irrelevant. Being empowered by established police forces to enforce laws does not make officers super-civilians, and they are by definition not members of the military. Police officers and civilian law enforcement are civilians.

Care to make any other logically implosive arguments?

It does make them worthy of carrying better weapons than regular civilians though, in my mind. I understand that you disagree. I just think your line of argument here is stupid and dishonest, and I explained why earlier.

Explain to us exactly where you believe they stop being "regular civilians" and become "super civilians" who are more equal than others.

justtray: How about we do both?

How about you not punish me and those of us who are law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a few idiots?

AbiNormal: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to.

I'm against a ban on Daedric Warhammers.

I can not wait for the inevitable "Massacre at gun range, Cops say "who cares"" article.

Katolu: 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.

The one time this backfired was the North Hollywood bank robbery shoot- out, where the criminals waaaay outgunned the cops. Not saying it's reason to have cops armed to the teeth, however.

The criminals of the "North Hollywood Shootout" used firearms not legally available to civilians (the criminals utilized firearm models already prohibited to civilians in the United States due to the ease by which they could be converted to fully automatic operation).

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

HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: And the argument you're missing is twofold.

That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that the goal isnt total prevention, but to lower gun related homicide.

Again, argument soundly defeated.

Then try to ban handguns. They account for the lion's share of deaths due to firearms (some of them are even unlawful homicides, as opposed to justifiable homicide as self defense, or shootings by law enforcement).

The weapons you are focusing on are involved in such a small percentage of overall deaths, much less violent crime, that they are statistically insignificant. The DoJ itself concluded that their use in crime was so minial before, during, and after the 1994 ban that it was impossible to calculate any discernible impact from the federal ban.

But let's ignore all that for a moment. Let's take a look at the ban Sen. Feinstien has proposed. From the text of that bill, explain to me exactly how any measure of that law will directly prevent violent crime. Find one part of the statute that will directly and demonstrably BLOCK a criminal act.

We'll sit here while you search in vain.

Even the bill's author and sponsors admit it won't do that, or even come close. You are championing supposed benefits of a law that even those who wrote it openly and explicitly admit it is incapable of.

I dont want to ban any guns. I just want to tax them based on their rates of risk, as per the free market. I also want registration to force liability.

But you do make a sound argument that if we should ban something, banning handguns would be more effective in lowering gun related homicide, and i agree.

rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: Would you really prefer the proletariat's whims dictate what the gov't can do? Even knowing 92% of people are average or dumber?

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 425x279]

Unfamiliar with bell curves and standard deviation, aren't you? Communications major?

AbiNormal: It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to.

And that's the rub, isn't it?

We do place limits on Constitutional rights, absolutely.

And we do so only when there is absolute clarity that the limitation of that right will have a meaningful, demonstrable impact on public safety.

This is the contention of this debate; there is no farking data to say that banning so called "assault weapons" will have any meaningful impact on actual public safety.

1- They are used in a statistically insignificant portion of overall firearm crimes (less than 2%).
2- There is no data to support that the use of an "assault weapon" has any impact on the lethality of those crimes (i.e. they would just as easily happened had another weapon been used).
3- There is data to suggest that the limitation of these weapons in civilian hands would be detrimental to the cause of legal self defense (especially magazine capacity bans).

On this last point, I would say that there are almost no scenarios where a 30 round AR magazine has been necessary for a citizen to defend themselves, but there are *many* cases where civilians have needed more than 10 rounds to adequately defend themselves. There is also little/no data to suggest that magazine capacity has an impact on actual firearm crimes though.

So yes, we do understand that Constitutional rights have limitations. Where we disagree is in the belief that limiting the 2nd Amendment, as is being proposed currently, offers any net benefit to society.

macadamnut: Lamoille Valley Fish and Game Club

[cps-static.rovicorp.com image 600x450]

You should check out the Stowe rod and gun club. It's on the other side of the mountain. You wouldn't know it.

justtray: Poor deflection.

Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts.

Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though.

Couple of things here:

1/ Do you even know what "cognitive dissonance" means? Or do you just parrot the term because it sounded cool?
2/ Do you suggest that all the violent crime in the UK occurs in London? Otherwise, why mention it?

But hey, let's dispense with your ignorant bullshiat for a moment and get down to brass tacks. You fairly baldly stated: "Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density". Fair enough. Let's look into that. Who has some of the highest population densities in the world? Well, according to the wikipedia, that'd be crime ridden places like Singapore, Taiwan and Bahrain. Surely those places have violent crime rates commensurate with their population densities. Oh, no, wait...they don't.

In fact, in those places, guess what you have? You have a very harsh legal system that criminals know will mean the consequences of their actions will likely be quite dire. That is to say: if they consider committing a crime, they're also considering the possible ramifications. How about that?

Or maybe it doesn't have all that much to do with how close everybody's mailbox is to everyone else. Either or, right?

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.

BgJonson79: rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: rufus-t-firefly: Englebert Slaptyback: Gosling

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them.

Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators.

Everything is legal in VT :-)

They can always make sure every car there is current on its registration and inspection.

And they can run plates to make sure there aren't any cars registered to felons parked at this gun range.

Wow, getting them on non-criminal non-moving penalties. That's some fine police work there, Lou.

Reasonable suspicion that a felon is at the range with a firearm? That's probable cause. Warrant to enter the range, requesting ID from everyone at the range...

Make it a pain in the ass to go to the range and cause a drop in business and he'll be BEGGING the cops to pay for access.

Hey, they're just doing their jobs. Just because they normally might not enforce EVERY law at every opportunity doesn't mean they can't start with that place.

justtray: I dont want to ban any guns.

Readers should be aware that justttray is lying.

Alonjar: gja: OK, here we go.....
The Police are NOT required to protect you. That is an understood truth. The laws and charter for their service bear this assertion out.
Hence, they need no firepower greater than the populous at large (John Q Public).
They do NOT receive training that is in any way equal to the armed forces.
They are not afforded the latitude in their duties that the armed forces are given.
(There is rarely, if ever, a need for a soldier or a Marine to file a report after killing an enemy. The police must always file and undergo investigation).
So, if what I have read many times over is fair ("only trained military people should have these guns") and the police are none of them, then they should not have anything the public is not entitled to possess.

lol wut?

He asked "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) "
That was my answer.
Show me where I lied or posted something that isn't true.

Is there some type of reading comprehension problem on your end?

The police are not required to protect  individuals. FACT.
They do not undergo training equal to the armed forces. FACT
Anytime they discharge their weapon (of any type) whether or not a death is involved, there are reports and investigations. FACT
Many times has it been said, in reference to what we are typifying as 'Assault weapons/rifles' that "Only the trained military should have these".
You can find it said all over FARK and sites too numerous to deny it's utterance.

The police are NOT military, nor even Para-military. They are a civilian law enforcement. So one would rationally and logically conclude they need only the level of weaponry on par with those they are chartered with enforcing laws on.

AbiNormal

It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to.

Right? If only the authors had numerous other writings to clarify their intent...

Kit Fister: justtray: How about we do both?

How about you not punish me and those of us who are law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a few idiots?

Im sure youve heard this before, but thats how society works. The few ruin it for the rest. If you dont like what that leads to, Somalia doesnt have such restrictions. See if you like it there.

rufus-t-firefly: If they're carrying in plain sight, there's no need for a warrant.

Uh. the law here in Vermont is you may conceal any weapon under 6 feet in length with no permit required.

Kit Fister: dr-shotgun: justtray: Now THIS is ironic coming from someone who has to rely on a 4 year old conservative activist, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, soon to be repealed supreme court decision to have any argument whatsoever.

Heller was willfully ignorant?

Right, because when the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments refer to "the people," they confer an individual right. With the 2nd Amendment though, "the people" is referring to a collective right.

Someone apparently also missed civics class the day they explained that Supreme Court rulings cannot be repealed.

Erm .... don't overreach:

"Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause."
-Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406-407, 410 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

[W]hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.-, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944).

Stare decisis is a good thing but it can be overturned. That said, the 2nd amendment should not have it's "of the people" interpreted any differently than any other amendment with that phrase in it (1st, 4th, et al).
s

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, yes, but not banned.

justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: And the argument you're missing is twofold.

That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that the goal isnt total prevention, but to lower gun related homicide.

Again, argument soundly defeated.

Then try to ban handguns. They account for the lion's share of deaths due to firearms (some of them are even unlawful homicides, as opposed to justifiable homicide as self defense, or shootings by law enforcement).

The weapons you are focusing on are involved in such a small percentage of overall deaths, much less violent crime, that they are statistically insignificant. The DoJ itself concluded that their use in crime was so minial before, during, and after the 1994 ban that it was impossible to calculate any discernible impact from the federal ban.

But let's ignore all that for a moment. Let's take a look at the ban Sen. Feinstien has proposed. From the text of that bill, explain to me exactly how any measure of that law will directly prevent violent crime. Find one part of the statute that will directly and demonstrably BLOCK a criminal act.

We'll sit here while you search in vain.

Even the bill's author and sponsors admit it won't do that, or even come close. You are championing supposed benefits of a law that even those who wrote it openly and explicitly admit it is incapable of.

I dont want to ban any guns. I just want to tax them based on their rates of risk, as per the free market. I also want registration to force liability.

But you do make a sound argument that if we should ban something, banning handguns would be more effective in lowering gun related homicide, and i agree.

Do you also support taxing people to vote? And assigning monetary and civil liability to people who vote for extremist candidates?

Or people who write books with inflammatory or controversial content?

Or practicing controversial religions?

HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement.

Completely irrelevant. Being empowered by established police forces to enforce laws does not make officers super-civilians, and they are by definition not members of the military. Police officers and civilian law enforcement are civilians.

Care to make any other logically implosive arguments?

It does make them worthy of carrying better weapons than regular civilians though, in my mind. I understand that you disagree. I just think your line of argument here is stupid and dishonest, and I explained why earlier.

Explain to us exactly where you believe they stop being "regular civilians" and become "super civilians" who are more equal than others.

I think that people who have been assigned the job of protecting the populace by upholding the laws, while under supervision of the government and all applicable responsibility are required to use weapons that are unsafe in the hands of citizens, while on duty.

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.

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.

Agreed. Citing a supreme court ruling was just driving home the proverbial nail. "Militia" was already defined in the Constitution.

justtray: Kit Fister: justtray: How about we do both?

How about you not punish me and those of us who are law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a few idiots?

Im sure youve heard this before, but thats how society works. The few ruin it for the rest. If you dont like what that leads to, Somalia doesnt have such restrictions. See if you like it there.

Well, it shouldn't, and it won't work this time.

MDGeist: I can not wait for the inevitable "Massacre at gun range"" article.

you cant wait for a massacre? maybe the police should be watching you?

BgJonson79: rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: Would you really prefer the proletariat's whims dictate what the gov't can do? Even knowing 92% of people are average or dumber?

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 425x279]

Unfamiliar with bell curves and standard deviation, aren't you? Communications major?

You didn't even offer a citation, but NOW you want to start talking about statistics?

And you didn't specify what kind of average you were using.

Sloppy work there.

MagicMissile: MDGeist: I can not wait for the inevitable "Massacre at gun range"" article.

you cant wait for a massacre? maybe the police should be watching you?

The mask is just slipping more often then usual for that crowd.

rufus-t-firefly: Gosling: BgJonson79: Wouldn't that be trespassing? Cops aren't above the law, and it's dangerous to think they are.

It's called commandeering. If the cops NEED to have a facility to train their personnel, and your gun range is the only facility in the area, guess what? Your gun range is now a police training facility.

Eminent domain.

"Here's a check for what we say your property is worth...it's ours now."

I'm shocked that those who support gun grabbing also support land grabbing.

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.

Liberalism is a mental health disorder and should be treated accordingly.

justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement.

Completely irrelevant. Being empowered by established police forces to enforce laws does not make officers super-civilians, and they are by definition not members of the military. Police officers and civilian law enforcement are civilians.

Care to make any other logically implosive arguments?

It does make them worthy of carrying better weapons than regular civilians though, in my mind. I understand that you disagree. I just think your line of argument here is stupid and dishonest, and I explained why earlier.

Explain to us exactly where you believe they stop being "regular civilians" and become "super civilians" who are more equal than others.

I think that people who have been assigned the job of protecting the populace by upholding the laws, while under supervision of the government and all applicable responsibility are required to use weapons that are unsafe in the hands of citizens, while on duty.

Why? Because their lives are somehow worth more than normal civilians?

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

At least you lived up to your Fark handle in that post.

vudukungfu: rufus-t-firefly: If they're carrying in plain sight, there's no need for a warrant.

Uh. the law here in Vermont is you may conceal any weapon under 6 feet in length with no permit required.

Read a little more carefully. The quoted bit refers to carrying in plain sight.

craig328: justtray: Poor deflection.

Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts.

Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though.

Couple of things here:

1/ Do you even know what "cognitive dissonance" means? Or do you just parrot the term because it sounded cool?
2/ Do you suggest that all the violent crime in the UK occurs in London? Otherwise, why mention it?

But hey, let's dispense with your ignorant bullshiat for a moment and get down to brass tacks. You fairly baldly stated: "Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density". Fair enough. Let's look into that. Who has some of the highest population densities in the world? Well, according to the wikipedia, that'd be crime ridden places like Singapore, Taiwan and Bahrain. Surely those places have violent crime rates commensurate with their population densities. Oh, no, wait...they don't.

In fact, in those places, guess what you have? You have a very harsh legal system that criminals know will mean the consequences of their actions will likely be quite dire. That is to say: if they consider committing a crime, they're also considering the possible ramifications. How about that?

Or maybe it doesn't have all that much to do with how close everybody's mailbox is to everyone else. Either or, right?

I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours.

MDGeist

I can not wait for the inevitable "Massacre at gun range"" article.

For some reason, crazies rarely shoot up places where most people are armed.

HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: And the argument you're missing is twofold.

That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that the goal isnt total prevention, but to lower gun related homicide.

Again, argument soundly defeated.

Then try to ban handguns. They account for the lion's share of deaths due to firearms (some of them are even unlawful homicides, as opposed to justifiable homicide as self defense, or shootings by law enforcement).

The weapons you are focusing on are involved in such a small percentage of overall deaths, much less violent crime, that they are statistically insignificant. The DoJ itself concluded that their use in crime was so minial before, during, and after the 1994 ban that it was impossible to calculate any discernible impact from the federal ban.

But let's ignore all that for a moment. Let's take a look at the ban Sen. Feinstien has proposed. From the text of that bill, explain to me exactly how any measure of that law will directly prevent violent crime. Find one part of the statute that will directly and demonstrably BLOCK a criminal act.

We'll sit here while you search in vain.

Even the bill's author and sponsors admit it won't do that, or even come close. You are championing supposed benefits of a law that even those who wrote it openly and explicitly admit it is incapable of.

I dont want to ban any guns. I just want to tax them based on their rates of risk, as per the free market. I also want registration to force liability.

But you do make a sound argument that if we should ban something, banning handguns would be more effective in lowering gun related homicide, and i agree.

Do you also support taxing people to vote? And assigning monetary and civil liability to people who vote for extremist candidates?

Or people who write books with inflammatory or controversial content?

Or practicing controversial religions?

No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner.

justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective.

No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours.

Singapore as a model society? Never thought I'd see the day...

I know it sounds cliche, but if you liked it so much and it was so safe, why are you not still living there?

muck4doo: rufus-t-firefly: Gosling: BgJonson79: Wouldn't that be trespassing? Cops aren't above the law, and it's dangerous to think they are.

It's called commandeering. If the cops NEED to have a facility to train their personnel, and your gun range is the only facility in the area, guess what? Your gun range is now a police training facility.

Eminent domain.

"Here's a check for what we say your property is worth...it's ours now."

I'm shocked that those who support gun grabbing also support land grabbing.

Probably a significant overlap between those who hate DC v Heller, but support Kelo v New London.

Gosling: BgJonson79: Wouldn't that be trespassing? Cops aren't above the law, and it's dangerous to think they are.

It's called commandeering. If the cops NEED to have a facility to train their personnel, and your gun range is the only facility in the area, guess what? Your gun range is now a police training facility.

The ability of the police to commandeer facilities really only applies in emergency situations when there is no alternative. It would be a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendments, and as such would require some sort of warrant and/or justification to a judge, and it would require just compensation be paid.

In this case, the police have a couple of reasonable alternatives: Build their own damn gun range, or apply pressure to the city council to drop the proposed assault weapons ban. Either one would satisfy the need to train without the need to seize property.

Another thing to consider is that such ranges are expensive to maintain and operate. The police are getting a deal because the members of the club contribute to the maintenance and upkeep of the range. For instance, my local F&G club the dues are $50 for the outside ranges, and another$40 for the inside ranges. Plus, you have to either pay a $25 work fee, or perform work maintaining the range on one of the scheduled work days. All that money and work would then fall to the police, because no one is going to pay for it if they seize it. Bills will go unpaid (for things like lights and heat). Kit Fister: justtray: Kit Fister: justtray: How about we do both? How about you not punish me and those of us who are law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a few idiots? Im sure youve heard this before, but thats how society works. The few ruin it for the rest. If you dont like what that leads to, Somalia doesnt have such restrictions. See if you like it there. Well, it shouldn't, and it won't work this time. It already has and will continue to do so. And the more you fight it, the more draconian the legislation will be. rufus-t-firefly: vudukungfu: rufus-t-firefly: If they're carrying in plain sight, there's no need for a warrant. Uh. the law here in Vermont is you may conceal any weapon under 6 feet in length with no permit required. Read a little more carefully. The quoted bit refers to carrying in plain sight. and you read what I said. There is no need to have a permit to carry concealed. justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective. America is not about being "safe". Totalitarian states who control every aspect of their subject's lives and kill those who are deemed problematic to the State - like the kind my grandfather and millions of others fought and bled to topple - are about being "safe". America is about being free. If you're using Singapore as a supporting argument in a debate about American legal and constitutional theory, you're in the completely wrong place. Gun ban argument: we have no proof that removing assault rifles will do anything to stem violent crime, but we want them banned. Where is all the violence during a gun show? Using gun ban logic, gun shows should be an orgy of blood and violence. Carousel Beast: dittybopper: justtray: Is clearly not about not wanting police to have superior firepower. Its about trying to get someone to say, "police have to have it," so then you can say, "if they do we do too!" And that argument is just never going to gain traction amongst non gun nuts. You've got it backwards: We already have it. The police already have it. It's been that way for decades, and we're fine with it. Now the government (in this case, a local one) wants to make it so that only the police have it. Now do you see why we might be a tad upset? Why are you responding to an outright lying troll? I'm bored, that's why. HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement. Completely irrelevant. Being empowered by established police forces to enforce laws does not make officers super-civilians, and they are by definition not members of the military. Police officers and civilian law enforcement are civilians. Care to make any other logically implosive arguments? It does make them worthy of carrying better weapons than regular civilians though, in my mind. I understand that you disagree. I just think your line of argument here is stupid and dishonest, and I explained why earlier. Explain to us exactly where you believe they stop being "regular civilians" and become "super civilians" who are more equal than others. I think that people who have been assigned the job of protecting the populace by upholding the laws, while under supervision of the government and all applicable responsibility are required to use weapons that are unsafe in the hands of citizens, while on duty. Why? Because their lives are somehow worth more than normal civilians? Haha no. Because they are tasked with upholding our laws and maintaining order for us, the civilians. justtray It already has and will continue to do so. And the more you fight it, the more draconian the legislation will be. And the more draconian the legislation is, the more people will defy it. Mass noncompliance. justtray: Kit Fister: justtray: How about we do both? How about you not punish me and those of us who are law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a few idiots? Im sure youve heard this before, but thats how society works. The few ruin it for the rest. If you dont like what that leads to, Somalia doesnt have such restrictions. See if you like it there. Not necessarily. The "few ruin it for the rest" only in a society of cowards, who would sacrifice their personal freedom for nanny state security. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Ben Franklin Facetious_Speciest: justtray It already has and will continue to do so. And the more you fight it, the more draconian the legislation will be. And the more draconian the legislation is, the more people will defy it. Mass noncompliance. Also, the more draconian, the more difficult it becomes to defend in court. Gun control overreach is part of what gave us DC v Heller and US v McDonald. Fubini: Because the police aren't a domestic army, they're a civilian (non-military) organization for law enforcement. Just based on appearance ( darker uniforms, shorter haircuts, more paramilitary gear ) , they've been moving towards being a domestic army over the last 30 years, IMHO. / cops look more frightening now than they did in the '70s Mutiny32: Can we label the NRA as a hate organization yet? I hate it when you say that. 'Hero' tag MIA. justtray: craig328: justtray: Poor deflection. Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts. Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though. Couple of things here: 1/ Do you even know what "cognitive dissonance" means? Or do you just parrot the term because it sounded cool? 2/ Do you suggest that all the violent crime in the UK occurs in London? Otherwise, why mention it? But hey, let's dispense with your ignorant bullshiat for a moment and get down to brass tacks. You fairly baldly stated: "Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density". Fair enough. Let's look into that. Who has some of the highest population densities in the world? Well, according to the wikipedia, that'd be crime ridden places like Singapore, Taiwan and Bahrain. Surely those places have violent crime rates commensurate with their population densities. Oh, no, wait...they don't. In fact, in those places, guess what you have? You have a very harsh legal system that criminals know will mean the consequences of their actions will likely be quite dire. That is to say: if they consider committing a crime, they're also considering the possible ramifications. How about that? Or maybe it doesn't have all that much to do with how close everybody's mailbox is to everyone else. Either or, right? I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective. No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours. I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry. Their populace lives in a state of fear of their government. They simply don't have the rights and freedom we do. They quite literally fear death if they do something "illegal.". I'm glad I live here and not Singapore. You can very easily move back if you want...ya ya I know. morgen_benner: justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective. No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours. Singapore as a model society? Never thought I'd see the day... I know it sounds cliche, but if you liked it so much and it was so safe, why are you not still living there? I never said any or those things and if you took that away, you misunderstood. Also, youve never been there so please don't ignorantly disparage it. It is not a model society, they have a horrible income distribution, but that doesnt mean there are aspects that are beneficial for our society in the US. Manditory savings taken out of your check not put in a magic hat called social security, for example. rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: Would you really prefer the proletariat's whims dictate what the gov't can do? Even knowing 92% of people are average or dumber? [i0.kym-cdn.com image 425x279] Unfamiliar with bell curves and standard deviation, aren't you? Communications major? You didn't even offer a citation, but NOW you want to start talking about statistics? And you didn't specify what kind of average you were using. Sloppy work there. Does average equate to mean, and doesn't mean always include standard deviation, especially when talking about bell curves, which intelligence levels fit into? Also, Englebert Slaptyback: Gosling I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up. They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them. That would be interesting. Will he call the cops on the cops? justtray: No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner. You're dead wrong about not all rights being equal (although it's very revealing about how you think... yuck, by the way). But we'll humor you for a moment. There's a compelling interest in taxing voting as a means to discourage or prohibit those who have no investment in the well-being or continued best interest of the conduct of a nation state, especially one built on the voting consent of the citizenry such as ours. It also helps sift out those who flat-out don't understand or can't comprehend the mechanics of how their nation's government works and why it works that way. The same could be said for inflammatory writings or religious practices. Political screeds turned into flawed government (or used to try and justify the rule of despots) and religious zealots have been behind more violence, death and misery in human history than any single mechanical device. HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective. America is not about being "safe". Totalitarian states who control every aspect of their subject's lives and kill those who are deemed problematic to the State - like the kind my grandfather and millions of others fought and bled to topple - are about being "safe". America is about being free. If you're using Singapore as a supporting argument in a debate about American legal and constitutional theory, you're in the completely wrong place. Good thing im not then. Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully. justtray: morgen_benner: justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective. No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours. Singapore as a model society? Never thought I'd see the day... I know it sounds cliche, but if you liked it so much and it was so safe, why are you not still living there? I never said any or those things and if you took that away, you misunderstood. Also, youve never been there so please don't ignorantly disparage it. It is not a model society, they have a horrible income distribution, but that doesnt mean there are aspects that are beneficial for our society in the US. Manditory savings taken out of your check not put in a magic hat called social security, for example. Holy crap...you really do want to sacrifice all your freedoms don't you? Why? Don't deflect, don't change the subject, please. I am genuinely curious as to why you would not only tolerate, but welcome the removal of all your freedom. Facetious_Speciest: justtray It already has and will continue to do so. And the more you fight it, the more draconian the legislation will be. And the more draconian the legislation is, the more people will defy it. Mass noncompliance. I doubt it. People love to pretend like they'll be the martyrs, but when push comes to shove only the vast forgotten minority have the guts to be the one to fall on the sword. Gun nuts are the minority. A shrinking one. justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement. Completely irrelevant. Being empowered by established police forces to enforce laws does not make officers super-civilians, and they are by definition not members of the military. Police officers and civilian law enforcement are civilians. Care to make any other logically implosive arguments? It does make them worthy of carrying better weapons than regular civilians though, in my mind. I understand that you disagree. I just think your line of argument here is stupid and dishonest, and I explained why earlier. Explain to us exactly where you believe they stop being "regular civilians" and become "super civilians" who are more equal than others. I think that people who have been assigned the job of protecting the populace by upholding the laws, while under supervision of the government and all applicable responsibility are required to use weapons that are unsafe in the hands of citizens, while on duty. Why? Because their lives are somehow worth more than normal civilians? Haha no. Because they are tasked with upholding our laws and maintaining order for us, the civilians. So then why do they need such terrifying, destructive weapons? Because they need to defend themselves from and subdue dangerous criminals? justtray: I think that people who have been assigned the job of protecting the populace by upholding the laws, while under supervision of the government and all applicable responsibility are required to use weapons that are unsafe in the hands of citizens, while on duty. I think that conclusion is absolutely AWFUL. Having an overarmed and under-trained (which many officers have shown themselves to be) group running about and commonly in high-stress/potentially explosive situations is a recipe for.....well......crap like this thread. Dimensio: The criminals of the "North Hollywood Shootout" used firearms not legally available to civilians (the criminals utilized firearm models already prohibited to civilians in the United States due to the ease by which they could be converted to fully automatic operation). This is absolutely wrong. Many weapons for sale then, and today, are readily (illegally) convertable to full automatic. Not one weapon is or has been banned for this reason. The same guns that were used in that robbery can be purchased today, legally. The AK they used is less than$1000. This assertion also demonstrates further ignorance, since...

dofus:
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.

1. M-16s are not "banned". Who lied to you about this, and why did you believe them? In 1986 the department that does registrations of new machine guns was defunded. You can still buy those that were in private ownership before that, so long as you pay the "no NFA items for coloreds" tax.

2. Everyone in the community biatches about #1, except the non-shooting collectors who don't want to see their investments depreciate. A full auto M-16 is $10-$25 thousand these days. Uzi's and other submachine guns are much cheaper, around $4000, and perfectly legal to buy and sell as well. 3. The AR-15 IS a semi-automatic rifle. No "was" about it. No "hot rod" version that's full auto. So in summary, you're both about as ignorant on the subject as the average gun control advocate. enforcerpsu: justtray: craig328: justtray: Poor deflection. Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts. Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though. Couple of things here: 1/ Do you even know what "cognitive dissonance" means? Or do you just parrot the term because it sounded cool? 2/ Do you suggest that all the violent crime in the UK occurs in London? Otherwise, why mention it? But hey, let's dispense with your ignorant bullshiat for a moment and get down to brass tacks. You fairly baldly stated: "Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density". Fair enough. Let's look into that. Who has some of the highest population densities in the world? Well, according to the wikipedia, that'd be crime ridden places like Singapore, Taiwan and Bahrain. Surely those places have violent crime rates commensurate with their population densities. Oh, no, wait...they don't. In fact, in those places, guess what you have? You have a very harsh legal system that criminals know will mean the consequences of their actions will likely be quite dire. That is to say: if they consider committing a crime, they're also considering the possible ramifications. How about that? Or maybe it doesn't have all that much to do with how close everybody's mailbox is to everyone else. Either or, right? I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective. No im not arguing population dens ... You dont know anything about singapore. So dont pretend to. justtray Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. You have no "right to be safe" from imaginary scenarios. You certainly have no right to preemptively punish me to make yourself feel safer. justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective. America is not about being "safe". Totalitarian states who control every aspect of their subject's lives and kill those who are deemed problematic to the State - like the kind my grandfather and millions of others fought and bled to topple - are about being "safe". America is about being free. If you're using Singapore as a supporting argument in a debate about American legal and constitutional theory, you're in the completely wrong place. Good thing im not then. Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully. You support banning alcohol too? justtray: Im sure youve heard this before, but thats how society works. The few ruin it for the rest. If you dont like what that leads to, Somalia doesnt have such restrictions. See if you like it there. If you're going to go that route, since you love gun control so much, why don't you move to North Korea? morgen_benner: justtray: morgen_benner: justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective. No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours. Singapore as a model society? Never thought I'd see the day... I know it sounds cliche, but if you liked it so much and it was so safe, why are you not still living there? I never said any or those things and if you took that away, you misunderstood. Also, youve never been there so please don't ignorantly disparage it. It is not a model society, they have a horrible income distribution, but that doesnt mean there are aspects that are beneficial for our society in the US. Manditory savings taken out of your check not put in a magic hat called social security, for example. Holy crap...you really do want to sacrifice all your freedoms don't you? Why? Don't deflect, don't change the subject, please. I am genuinely curious as to why you would not only tolerate, but welcome the removal of all your freedom. Of course i dont. What a silly mischaracterization of my position. justtray: I lived in Singapore for 3 years. Know what else they dont have? Any guns. They also dont have much freedom. You're arrested if you speak out against the government in a public forum. Yet it still remains the safest place in the world ive ever been. I suggest you visit, may change your entire prospective. No im not arguing population density is the only factor in crime. The fact that you have to attempt to warp my argument speaks volumes to the strength of yours. It was the only argument you advanced to rebut what I said. Sorry if it was a particularly shiatty argument (and it was ridiculously so) but hey, you chose it not me. So, back to the point I made that you disagree with: violent crime in the UK is 4x that of the United States per capita and I suggested that the reason their crime rate is so high compared to us was that thugs worldwide do take a moment and consider the possible consequences to their potential actions. Ergo, this is why you hardly ever hear of a uniformed police officer being raped, robbed, etc. Those guys (in the U.S.) are armed and they'd be a particularly bad witness at any subsequent trial. Since we dispensed with the whole population density rubbish, what makes you think that criminals in the United States aren't deterred by the possibility their victim might be armed? I mean, rapes are much lower, armed robbery is much lower, assault and battery is much much lower...all crimes wherein the criminal has to be in direct physical contact with the victim. You truly believe the mind of the criminal is so hell bent on mayhem that they don't consider such things as how it might could affect them? Really? justtray: Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully. If you have a "right to be safe", then why not ban all firearms? 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'm sorry, but this is remarkably dumb. Police need to have advantages over criminals. That includes heavier firepower. If you think the good guys need to give the bad guys a fair chance, then you're completely out of touch with reality. The_Sponge: justtray: Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully. If you have a "right to be safe", then why not ban all firearms? Or at the very least, ban handguns.....because your chances of being shot with a handgun are A LOT HIGHER than the chances that you will be shot with a so-called "assault weapon". justtray: You dont know anything about singapore. So dont pretend to. I know the US State Department discourages Americans from traveling there because of the extremely draconian punishments doled out for crimes that are prosecuted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in kangaroo courts. Is that seriously freedom to you? BgJonson79: Does average equate to mean, and doesn't mean always include standard deviation, especially when talking about bell curves, which intelligence levels fit into? No. An IQ of 101 is smarter than average, you failed to specify any confidence interval. Even if you were wishy-washy enough to try a whole sd for a confidence interval, (so IQs 110 and below) you're still talking roughly 85%. justtray I doubt it. People love to pretend like they'll be the martyrs, but when push comes to shove only the vast forgotten minority have the guts to be the one to fall on the sword. There's no need to fall on a sword. You are obviously incredibly unfamiliar with how firearm ownership works in the States. Let's say (hypothetically) I had a dozen firearms. There are no records of my owning them. I would have no intention of turning myself in if the government demands registration. End result: I have weapons, and you can't do anything about it. No sword involved. Just a refusal to participate in the weapon prohibition scheme. HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: Sorry misquote above here. I listed a fact. Citizens arrest does not make civilians law enforcement. Completely irrelevant. Being empowered by established police forces to enforce laws does not make officers super-civilians, and they are by definition not members of the military. Police officers and civilian law enforcement are civilians. Care to make any other logically implosive arguments? It does make them worthy of carrying better weapons than regular civilians though, in my mind. I understand that you disagree. I just think your line of argument here is stupid and dishonest, and I explained why earlier. Explain to us exactly where you believe they stop being "regular civilians" and become "super civilians" who are more equal than others. I think that people who have been assigned the job of protecting the populace by upholding the laws, while under supervision of the government and all applicable responsibility are required to use weapons that are unsafe in the hands of citizens, while on duty. Why? Because their lives are somehow worth more than normal civilians? Haha no. Because they are tasked with upholding our laws and maintaining order for us, the civilians. So then why do they need such terrifying, destructive weapons? Because they need to defend themselves from and subdue dangerous criminals? So now ar-15s and/or assault weapons are terrifying and destructive? Hah, this is getting funny. If you're implying I think they should have no limit, again, poor mischaracterization of my argument. Im simply stating they should be at an advantage from the 'dangerous criminals' as you put it. I dont think thats unreasonable. Nothing is black and white, its simply a matter of what is fair level of control, within private ownership, and relative to government use. And there's not one solid, right answer. Anyway im out. Good discussion with most of you. Thank you for the responses. The_Sponge: justtray: Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully. If you have a "right to be safe", then why not ban all firearms? And anything else that could possibly hurt you... The_Sponge: justtray: Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully. If you have a "right to be safe", then why not ban all firearms? Why stop there? Let's ban everything that might pose a danger to him in his imaginary scenarios. 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. 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. i want to just say "this" but i am unclear as to what it has been historically - even in this nation, let alone world wide - of the weapons used by the ruling class / law enforcement as compared to the civilian population. for instance: 1800's in the U.S. - firearms were the height of weapon tech as they are now, but were limited to what? revolvers and lever action rifles were the civilians limited to only bolt action rifles or muskets? when semi auto pistols (ala the gospel according to john browning) came about, were civilians limited to revolvers? /anyone smell what the rock is cooking? Wayne 985: I'm sorry, but this is remarkably dumb. Police need to have advantages over criminals. That includes heavier firepower. If you think the good guys need to give the bad guys a fair chance, then you're completely out of touch with reality. This isn't a good argument, as it's not about giving the bad guys a fair chance. It's about not giving automatic weapons to yahoos that couldn't get a job better than 'cop' while I'm somehow too untrustworthy to let buy a 15 round magazine for my target pistol. Wayne 985 I'm sorry, but this is remarkably dumb. Police need to have advantages over criminals. That includes heavier firepower. If you think the good guys need to give the bad guys a fair chance, then you're completely out of touch with reality. We (citizens) are the good guys. Why is it so important for the police to outgun us? Why would you want both police and criminals to have an advantage over us? justtray: Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Rights don't work that way. Rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights specifically to protect them from being trampled by the majority. If those rights didn't have costs attached to them, they wouldn't need protection because nobody would particularly care if you exercised them or not. For example, you have the right to collect bellybutton lint. That's not enshrined in the Constitution however because nobody really cares if you do it or not. There is no cost to society for you to collect such lint or not as you may choose. But there can be serious costs to society for the other rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the right to be secure in your person and effects from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to remain silent, the right to be compensated for property seized by the government, and yes, the right to keep and bear arms *ALL* have a significant cost to society. Some of those costs are indirect: We'll probably never get a good accounting of the number of people robbed, raped, or murdered because the Fourth and Fifth Amendments prevented the police from doing certain actions that could have prevented them. But we know there *IS* a cost involved there. The Second Amendment is no different: Yes, there is a cost in human lives. As a nation, we recognize this, and we've still kept it for over 200 years now. If at some point society as a whole decides it is no longer worth the cost, well, there is a mechanism to change that: Amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment. way to go Vermont ! The_Sponge: The_Sponge: justtray: Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. Heller supports this argument fully. If you have a "right to be safe", then why not ban all firearms? Or at the very least, ban handguns.....because your chances of being shot with a handgun are A LOT HIGHER than the chances that you will be shot with a so-called "assault weapon". Ok one more. Lets change this argument to, why not have relatively stronger controls on guns? We should use controls based on the availableness, amount of use relative to all guns, and lethialty of each gun. Those should be the criteria and our restrictions should reflect that. One example I support is an expansion of NFA to have higher tax stamps on guns determined to be more dangerous based on these criteria. There is no perfect solution. Cost based on risk to limit it. Facetious_Speciest: justtray Freedoms have limits. Where your right to something interferes with my right to be safe from it. You have no "right to be safe" from imaginary scenarios. You certainly have no right to preemptively punish me to make yourself feel safer. Funny, i would say the same to you. Ok thats the last one. 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. Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says. AngryJailhouseFistfark: What if the police officers are Sovereign Citizens? Would that entitle them to shootin' range entry? Only if they are members themselves, and pay their own way as a Sovereign Burlington, that's where that "Coat Factory" comes from, right? It's sad to see the political D-baggery. That range would have my business forever. justtray Funny, i would say the same to you. You would, but it would make no sense. I haven't suggested punishing people because I imagine they might, someday, do something wrong. You have. justtray: No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner. Well, I can see when any further conversation is an exercise in futility. Listen, I'm going to go ahead and let you go but I'll say this to you before I go. Were you one of the people who shrieked and moaned about how the Patriot Act trampled your rights? Maybe not but many did. Were you one of the ones who didn't care for the government ordering banks to report deposits over a certain amount supposedly as a measure to curtail drug activity? Again, maybe not. Maybe you're one of the ones who don't care for government defined "free speech zones" for people who wish to protest. Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of how you answer on any of those, do you see the government ever relinquishing any of those restrictions? Ever seen a government spend LESS in a year than in a previous year? Even when we had the surplus not too many years ago, did you see the government go "whoops, took too much money...we'll give that back"? I'm going to go ahead and guess you wouldn't like the government telling you what you can and cannot say or write. I'll guess you probably wouldn't like it if the police decided to pull you over and subject you and yours to a cavity search on the side of the road. Maybe if the police claimed they found you were smuggling 10 pounds of heroin in your rectum that you'd like to actually have a trial before being sentenced to life in prison? Or maybe, rather than prison, they decide to simply sell you into a life of slavery. You'd be okay with that? Maybe if you're a woman you'd like to have a vote? Would you be cool with giving up the rights that mean little to you personally? I mean, if you're not saying anything then losing the right to free speech wouldn't mean anything to you personally right? If you're not a criminal then you really have nothing to fear from warrantless searches of you and your property, right? You're not a criminal so the right to a trial won't affect you...so surely you must be okay with jettisoning the 5th through 8th amendments, right? And hey, since you might not be black or a woman losing the 13th, 15th and 19th amendments won't even affect you. But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed". No other right takes that extra statement but the second. That's because the framers knew that even as good a system as a republic could falter and the government could turn against its own people. The founding fathers knew that no matter how thoroughly they tried to set it up, our government can and will eventually falter...and when governments go bad it's the people that suffer and its the people that have to do something about it. Ergo, give the people the right to keep and bear arms so that if/when the situation warrants it, they can effect change. Just because you're short sighted enough to want to kiss off the only right that has any chance of guaranteeing the rest of them doesn't mean your decision is wise or even informed. Rustblade: 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. Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says. You're going to have to get the US Federal government to classify them then. ph0rk: BgJonson79: Does average equate to mean, and doesn't mean always include standard deviation, especially when talking about bell curves, which intelligence levels fit into? No. An IQ of 101 is smarter than average, you failed to specify any confidence interval. Even if you were wishy-washy enough to try a whole sd for a confidence interval, (so IQs 110 and below) you're still talking roughly 85%. I like to go for two SDs. Still okay, and something like intelligence is fluid so I prefer a wider interpretation. Besides, the person I was replying to has no IDEA what stats are so I was just kinda trolling them ;-) Wayne 985: 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'm sorry, but this is remarkably dumb. Police need to have advantages over criminals. That includes heavier firepower. If you think the good guys need to give the bad guys a fair chance, then you're completely out of touch with reality. How about the victims? Considering the criminal rarely gives the victim time and opportunity to call the police such that the police practically never show up in time to stop a crime as its being committed, don't you think the victims ought to have the choice of having "a fair chance"? BgJonson79: calm like a bomb: This just in: Stupid rednecks who don't understand how the government works are not limited to the South. So, how does the gov't work in this case? Isn't the city council the police's boss? To a point. But what I meant is the range owner is punishing those who enforce, not make, the law. He's pretty much up there with the sheriffs who say they will arrest anyone who enforces any new gun legislation on the Derp Meter. Rustblade: 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. Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says. Poe's law? Dimensio: Big_Fat_Liar: odinsposse: Antimatter: 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. They are government employees, same as the military, honestly. Does that mean the clerk at the DMV can buy an automatic rifle? Yes, I think it does. Also, the people driving the plow trucks for the county. They get fun guns too. And anybody on public aid... I am an employee of a university whose funding is only partially provided by the state. My salary is public information, however. Am I entitled to fully automatic firearms? I guess you are if you can pass the background check and other regulations and the gun you own was registered prior to 1986 /not an expert, just going by the comments in the thread. 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. justtray: Now THIS is ironic coming from someone who has to rely on a 4 year old conservative activist, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, soon to be repealed supreme court decision to have any argument whatsoever. I love fiction, are you a novelist? I doubt I'll read anything more disconnected from reality today than this right here. justtray: Kit Fister: justtray: How about we do both? How about you not punish me and those of us who are law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a few idiots? Im sure youve heard this before, but thats how society works. The few ruin it for the rest. If you dont like what that leads to, Somalia doesnt have such restrictions. See if you like it there. Actually that is NOT how society works. Society works that we punish the guilty for the sins of the guilty, not the whole for the sins of the few. What you are talking about, is typically called Despotism, or tyranny, or Dictatorship.. Something I am 100% sure you love the idea of. justtray: Funny, i would say the same to you. Only the punishment here wouldn't be preemptive, would it? justtray: Facetious_Speciest: justtray It already has and will continue to do so. And the more you fight it, the more draconian the legislation will be. And the more draconian the legislation is, the more people will defy it. Mass noncompliance. I doubt it. People love to pretend like they'll be the martyrs, but when push comes to shove only the vast forgotten minority have the guts to be the one to fall on the sword. Gun nuts are the minority. A shrinking one. Really? All the evidence suggests otherwise. Gun sales are at an all-time high. Gun owners are becoming younger and more female, and the talk now is the split between "Gun Culture 1.0" and "Gun Culture 2.0". The number of hunting licenses sold has started to increase after a couple decades of decline. It's up 9% over the last 5 years. Rustblade: 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. Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says. Coming from a guy whose country didn't even have a constitution til around 20 years ago, you probably have a little catching up to do on what a "right" is. Here in the United States, that right is elucidated like so: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". In other words, you're not only ignorant but you seem to be proud of it. Nice combo you got going there sport. Epicedion: This isn't a good argument, as it's not about giving the bad guys a fair chance. It's about not giving automatic weapons to yahoos that couldn't get a job better than 'cop' while I'm somehow too untrustworthy to let buy a 15 round magazine for my target pistol. I grew up around cops and still know a few. I guarantee they work harder and are more discipline than the average person. There's a reason they're given special rights to provide a safe society. Facetious_Speciest: We (citizens) are the good guys. Why is it so important for the police to outgun us? Why would you want both police and criminals to have an advantage over us? Most citizens are good guys, but most bad guys are also citizens. craig328: How about the victims? Considering the criminal rarely gives the victim time and opportunity to call the police such that the police practically never show up in time to stop a crime as its being committed, don't you think the victims ought to have the choice of having "a fair chance"? You think Joe Blow down the street is going to efficiently use a sub-machine gun and automatic rifle, compared to a SWAT team? Those will likely cause more harm than good in civilian hands. A shotgun or a handgun or even an AR-15 will protect a homeowner. If something bizarre goes down and SWAT are called, then I'm more than willing to stand aside for them. You're not Rambo, even if you want to be. Rustblade: 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. Hahahha. Way to put a nice spin on it, doctor. You should go work for Fox News! The police are unfortunately not civilians, no matter what way you put it. I don't know why it's so hard for you Gun Nut Americans to accept the fact that owning guns is no more a "right" than owning a driver's license. Despite what your silly constitution says. You know, we didn't make that right up out of whole cloth. It has roots in our common legal history that go back a thousand years. We just decided that it was more important than your immediate ancestors, apparently. I can understand why you deride it, just like I can understand how the phrase "money doesn't make you happy" is a perennial favorite of the economically downtrodden. I mean, it's sad in a "sour grapes" sort of way, but I understand how you feel. dittybopper: justtray: Facetious_Speciest: justtray It already has and will continue to do so. And the more you fight it, the more draconian the legislation will be. And the more draconian the legislation is, the more people will defy it. Mass noncompliance. I doubt it. People love to pretend like they'll be the martyrs, but when push comes to shove only the vast forgotten minority have the guts to be the one to fall on the sword. Gun nuts are the minority. A shrinking one. Really? All the evidence suggests otherwise. Gun sales are at an all-time high. Gun owners are becoming younger and more female, and the talk now is the split between "Gun Culture 1.0" and "Gun Culture 2.0". The number of hunting licenses sold has started to increase after a couple decades of decline. It's up 9% over the last 5 years. 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. craig328: In other words, you're not only ignorant but you seem to be proud of it. Well, he *IS* Canadian. That's "America-Lite". craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed" How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks. Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should. "In the absence of federal legislation or state law we feel it has come upon us as a city to take the measures we feel are necessary to protect our citizens," Burlington City Councilman Norman Blais said. By disarming citizens? I would say this is what they call "Infringement". I say surround all public officials with gun free zones, so they will be just as protected as we are. in·fringe·ment noun \in-ˈfrinj-mənt\ Definition of INFRINGEMENT 1: the act of infringing : violation 2: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege Examples of INFRINGEMENT First Known Use of INFRINGEMENT justtray: If you're implying I think they should have no limit, again, poor mischaracterization of my argument. Im simply stating they should be at an advantage from the 'dangerous criminals' as you put it. ...the same criminals which prey upon the general public, who in your world is less equal than police and has no "need" or "worth" to defend themselves from such dangers. You are the very type of person the Continental Army was shooting at. And someone like yourself gaining power in this nation and attempting to implement your ideologies is exactly the contingency the 2nd Amendment was written to address. Go back to Singapore. justtray: david_gaithersburg: craig328: Uk has 4x the violent crime rate we do per capita. We have 4x the homicide rate they do. . Wouldn't homicide be a subset of the violent crime category? Yes. Meaning if a violent crime occurs on you, you're 4x4 = 16 times more likely to be killed by it in the US as opposed to the UK. Wonder why that could be... Anything but the guns im sure Math fail. The murder rate in the US is 4x the UK. The UK has 4X the villent crime rate. Not sure why anyone would think that once you have decided a you are a victim of crime you now get to multiply the two numbers together to arrive at how much more likely you are to die in the US. Guess it seemed like a good idea at the time? justtray: Poor deflection. Crime rate is statistically correlated to population density. 20 million people live n London. Thats why their crime rate is so high. The reason their homicide rate is so low, despite having 4x the violent crime rate is because they dont have simple weapons of homicide, aka guns. At least, that is a very logial and statistically supported representation to be taken from these facts. Please do continue your cognitive dissonance though.. Is the Chav rate statistically correlated to the ubiquity of firearms? I was kidding but now that I think about it there's probably something there. Wayne 985 Most citizens are good guys, but most bad guys are also citizens. So the majority should be made less safe...being the ones who are preyed upon by violent criminals...so that cops can outgun the criminals? Cops don't guard peoples' houses. They aren't required to help you. They can literally decide not to respond to your cries for help, and nothing will happen to them. The fact that they would be better-armed than the criminals who ran away after doing their work would be scant comfort. 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 would support this law. I'm tired of SWAT teams being used to serve warrants for non-violent offenses that gets innocent people killed. Take away their assault rifles, flash bangs, and tanks. Wayne 985: You think Joe Blow down the street is going to efficiently use a sub-machine gun and automatic rifle, compared to a SWAT team? Those will likely cause more harm than good in civilian hands. A shotgun or a handgun or even an AR-15 will protect a homeowner. If something bizarre goes down and SWAT are called, then I'm more than willing to stand aside for them. You're not Rambo, even if you want to be. Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year. justtray: That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that ... I'm not sure if you are trolling or merely incredibly uninformed. Virginia tech resulted in far more deaths using two pistols with standard magazine capacities, one of which was a 10 shot 22lr. Columbine happened during an assault weapons ban. Aaron Harris fired by far the most shots using a 9mm gun that had 10 round magazines. The level of "distruction" of the round an AR15 is chambered in is much, much less than that of a typical deer rifle or pump shotgun, weapons which will likely never be banned. You talk an awful lot about things you don't understand. I recommend Assaultweapon.info as a nice introduction into the basics. It's the Dichotomy of Living in Vermont. You got your sensitive city slickers in Burlington, who happily lived with one of Charley Manson's girls walking among them, Fearing the big bad boogie man with a gun. Made up of Sensitive ponytailed dudes in Birkenstocks, and lesbians in full regalia on any given day, Walking about church street, letting their freak flags fly. 35 miles away, you got Lamoille County. Bunch of small towns, joined by Rt 15, and covered in cow shiat. Different attitudes and different ideas. Now because some of the fine people of Lamoille County have friends in the city, and the city government wants to impose a non federal and non state regulation on them, they decide not to cow tow to the city boys. Especially those who have used the range pro bono for years. Seems fair. Let them put their own gun range in on the farking intervale. Let them build their own range in the city. With city tax dollars. Me, I live in the cow shiat covered town and can shoot in my own back yard when I want to, and if I see a state trooper on my road, I walk out, because he's probably lost, anyway. HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner. You're dead wrong about not all rights being equal (although it's very revealing about how you think... yuck, by the way)... 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. justtray: kyrg: justtray: HeWhoHasNoName: Big Man On Campus: 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. They've tried this, with mixed results. [www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211] Criminals will just be better armed and organized. You mean criminals will ignore not only gun control laws and illegally modify weapons into contraband machine guns, but will also ignore laws prohibiting armed robbery, attempted murder, and a whole slew of other laws barring violent criminal acts? Seriously? Criminals ignored laws and broke them anyway? Gun control laws didn't stop them? WOW. I need to rethink things after that revelation... Murder is illegal, and people still commit murder. So lets not have a law against murder. Are people really so dense that they still think this is a valid line of thought? I mean jesus, get some new stupid talking points already. What YOU fail to admit is that a person willing to commit murder will do it with what ever means are available to them be it a gun, knife, pillow, shoe lace etc. Ban them all and you will still have people dying at the hands of others. In the end it's the person, not the item that is the problem. It's eaiser to ban a scary gun than to deal with the real issue of this topic and that is mental illness, the 800 pound gorrila in the room. And the argument you're missing is twofold. That not all weapons are capable of the same level of distruction, your premise is a falsehood (see china stabber same day as sandy hook), and that ... and five kids in the US die eveyday from child abuse, that's a Sandy Hook every week .. but it's the guns, not the lack of mental health treament .. /but the children //where's all the outrage stonicus How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks. How cute...you don't understand how asymmetric warfare works. Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should. I would love to hear more about this. Please, go on. craig328: Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year. Automatic weapons are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to own in the United States. Don't pretend like they're even remotely common. chairborne: round an AR15 is chambered in is much, much less than that of a typical deer rifle or pump shotgun, weapons which will likely never be banned. Been to England lately? OgreMagi: 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. Good idea. In fact lets also let teachers be considered Civilians and allow them to arm themselves just like the cops. HeWhoHasNoName: 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. Who's getting all semantic now? You just destroyed your own argument. By the way, you're leaving off the highly inconvenient (for you) prefatory "civilian" - i.e, civilian law enforcement. As in not military. Which is why the military branches have their own internal law enforcement system that applies to them, separate from the civilian law enforcement system, and why the military is barred from civilian law enforcement activity by way of posse comitatus. Tell me again, does your local sheriff get orders from NORCOM by way of the Pentagon and the Dept. of Defense? Does your local constabulary receive combat pay and military retiree benefits? Are local riot cops where you live bound by General Orders, ROE, and reprimanded every time they employ CS, CN or pepper spray chemical weapons on civilians and non-combatants in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Convention? C'mon, semantics matter here. You opened this can of worms. stonicus: craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed" How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks. Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should. And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right? Facetious_Speciest: So the majority should be made less safe...being the ones who are preyed upon by violent criminals...so that cops can outgun the criminals? Cops don't guard peoples' houses. They aren't required to help you. They can literally decide not to respond to your cries for help, and nothing will happen to them. The fact that they would be better-armed than the criminals who ran away after doing their work would be scant comfort. Keeping fully automatic guns out of civilian hands makes people more safe. I'd rather keep what exists in the hands of police and military. It's the same rationale we use to prohibit grenades and rocket launchers. Joe Blowme: stonicus: craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed" How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks. Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should. And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right? PsiChick: 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 don't buy it, since the police aren't traipsing off to Violent Nutjobville to do their jobs. The violent nutjobs are in and around the general public. I'd say that the general public has a vested interest in being equivalently prepared to deal with the violent nutjobs, and the only difference is that the general public is legally discouraged from actively engaging with the violent nutjobs (but not severely restricted in the case that the violent nutjobs avail themselves to be unavoidable). Wayne 985: I grew up around cops and still know a few. I guarantee they work harder and are more discipline than the average person. There's a reason they're given special rights to provide a safe society. I don't care what you guarantee. You guaranteeing such a thing is totally worthless. Why don't you come back with some statistics on misuse or criminal use of firearms by police and compare them to the general public? Wayne 985: craig328: Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year. Automatic weapons are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to own in the United States. Don't pretend like they're even remotely common. Okay then, let's pretend it's pre 1986 and civilian ownership of these isn't constrained by cost. stonicus: Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, Nope. Go see the Heller decision and try again. Did they ban this guy as well? This is a great step for man. As NWA would say.... "Fark the Police" They have their own ranges and could suck a long hard one. Why allow or make them more powerful you idiots, it is better if the public is stronger than the government. ALWAYS. I like the cut of his jib. Wayne 985: Joe Blowme: stonicus: craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed" How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks. Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should. And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right? DC v Heller: "Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms"). " Wayne 985 Keeping fully automatic guns out of civilian hands makes people more safe. I'd rather keep what exists in the hands of police and military. I'd rather not have a civilian paramilitary group (police) have a decisive advantage over the people they're supposed to be protecting. Hells, I'd rather we not have such a large military with such advantage. Near-monopolies on effective violence rarely end well for those outside said monopoly. I hear what you're saying, though. I just disagree. Gosling: BgJonson79: Wouldn't that be trespassing? Cops aren't above the law, and it's dangerous to think they are. It's called commandeering. If the cops NEED to have a facility to train their personnel, and your gun range is the only facility in the area, guess what? Your gun range is now a police training facility. Yeah, how about the cops try the landfill. Watch out for the crows though! Joe Blowme: And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right? Middle school? My bad, I thought you were older. Thank you for showing how young and uninformed you are. Read this if you can. MadCat221: 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. North Hollywood Shootout. The cops would have been better served with leverguns in .45-70. Wayne 985: craig328: Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year. Automatic weapons are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to own in the United States. Don't pretend like they're even remotely common. Ermm, they're impossible because they cost$20k, not because you're unable to buy one.

rufus-t-firefly: Englebert Slaptyback: Gosling

I'm pretty sure that if the cops decide they want to show up, they're going to show up.

They are free to show up, but the range owner is equally free to refuse to serve them.

Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators.

They would need a warrant for each and every person who was entering the facilities. The 4th Amendment specifically bars the government from arbitrary searches and seizures. And no, a blanket warrant is not legal.

Dimensio: You are correct. Such a claim is ... stupid and irrational...

Wait... then why did you make it?

Also, thank god my original comment got deleted as a "personal attack" even though the person allegedly "attacked" managed to get the blindingly obvious satirical point.

Perducci: "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.

Because laws can never change over time, right genius?

Americans are absolutely amazing to listen to sometimes. They're so fanatical about a document written hundreds of years ago that we might as well consider "Constitutionalism" as a religion.

Because the Constitution is supposed to be important. That's why. You want it to change? Fine, there are procedures to make changes. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. You can't simply change the meaning of the Constitution just because you don't like something.

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.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Dimensio: You are correct. Such a claim is ... stupid and irrational...

Wait... then why did you make it?

Also, thank god my original comment got deleted as a "personal attack" even though the person allegedly "attacked" managed to get the blindingly obvious satirical point.

I am attempting to learn the proper use of the human technique known as "sarcasm". I have yet to master the practice, however.

I wondering if there is actually any real gun debate or whether this is just the best viral marketing campaing for firearms ever created.

/sales numbers dont lie

stonicus: Read this if you can.

It is irrelevent in the context of the law. Again the Heller Decision held that the prefatory clause does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

Sorry dude, if you don't like it, go amend the Constitution.

Epicedion: PsiChick: 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 don't buy it, since the police aren't traipsing off to Violent Nutjobville to do their jobs. The violent nutjobs are in and around the general public. I'd say that the general public has a vested interest in being equivalently prepared to deal with the violent nutjobs, and the only difference is that the general public is legally discouraged from actively engaging with the violent nutjobs (but not severely restricted in the case that the violent nutjobs avail themselves to be unavoidable).

...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is  not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian.

FC Exile: Did they ban this guy as well?
[i203.photobucket.com image 268x247]

Oh, is that Obama shooting skeet? Yeah, he really looks like he knows what he's doing there. Heh. From now on, I shall call him "Shotgun Urkel".

Not that it's really important, but to avoid the easy conversational usage for a moment, police are civilians. In fact, that's where the word "civilian" comes from...civil servants.

Just because the current American police like to play commando doesn't mean they're part of the American military. Pretending they are is another step down the road to Nogoodsville.

Dimensio: I am attempting to learn the proper use of the human technique known as "sarcasm". I have yet to master the practice, however.

Oh, I see. So you just completely made up a position you imagine your opponents on the issue to have - a process not generally referred to as "sarcasm" but rather as "lying" - and then attempted to pin it to them so you could frame out an argument you want to have rather than oppose one anybody is actually making?

I find it rather amusing that you made the second comment in the thread an outright dishonest portrayal of the broad movement to strengthen gun control laws so you could try and build an argument you could attack that nobody actually supports then promptly went on to accuse another poster of being an "established liar".

A bit hypocritical, perhaps?

gja: Alonjar: gja: OK, here we go.....
The Police are NOT required to protect you. That is an understood truth. The laws and charter for their service bear this assertion out.
Hence, they need no firepower greater than the populous at large (John Q Public).
They do NOT receive training that is in any way equal to the armed forces.
They are not afforded the latitude in their duties that the armed forces are given.
(There is rarely, if ever, a need for a soldier or a Marine to file a report after killing an enemy. The police must always file and undergo investigation).
So, if what I have read many times over is fair ("only trained military people should have these guns") and the police are none of them, then they should not have anything the public is not entitled to possess.

lol wut?

He asked "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) "
That was my answer.
Show me where I lied or posted something that isn't true.

Is there some type of reading comprehension problem on your end?

The police are not required to protect  individuals. FACT.
They do not undergo training equal to the armed forces. FACT
Anytime they discharge their weapon (of any type) whether or not a death is involved, there are reports and investigations. FACT
Many times has it been said, in reference to what we are typifying as 'Assault weapons/rifles' that "Only the trained military should have these".
You can find it said all over FARK and sites too numerous to deny it's utterance.

The police are NOT military, nor even Para-military. They are a civilian law enforcement. So one would rationally and logically conclude they need only the level of weaponry on par with those they are chartered with enforcing laws on.

The other blind spot is that despite Police generally being trained to lower levels of proficiency than the military none of these people have ever put forth an opinion that military veterans be exempt from these laws in the same way that Police generally are. Hell, most states that have very strict carry laws have exemptions for retired police. Why not extend that to veterans? Because there are too many of us. That would exempt nearly 22 million people by Veterans Affairs numbers. We wouldn't want that would we?

I think it's probably significant that the last couple generations are the first veterans who aren't trusted enough to bring home their rifles. That says something about the dysfunctional relationship our government has with it's citizens.

It also kind of deconstructs all that idiotic talk about the 2nd amendment being outdated because of drones and tanks. First off, the military isn't full of robots with no free will. Second a drone or a tank is useless when the person behind it is removed from the equation. Third, veterans and other capable citizens *vastly* outnumber every cop, soldier and fed combined. That's always been kind of the point, any government bad enough to warrant the citizenry engaging in armed resistance is going to be farked.

/just to forestall the inevitable idiotic rejoinder: I don't advocate allowing soldiers to bring home crew served weaponry or missile launchers. I'm talking about the basic infantry rifle. That's all you need to fight an insurgency, at least for starters.

The thread started out fine, but then justtray started shiatting all over it with his idiotic stubborn insistence that police are somehow not civilians (despite it being blatantly wrong, and easy to check) and things just went downhill from there. I haven't been participating in the gun threads, because the whole debate reminds me of the Bill of Rights killing scares of the past... the war on drugs, the war on terror, the "violent music" garbage, etc. so I'm guessing all of them have pretty much played out like this.

Some people just don't respect the rights that our forefathers fought so hard for because they don't personally use them much and have been manipulated by this latest hysteria in to arguing that the state should remove more of those rights in exchange for an empty promise of "safety". Sad, but nothing new.

Wayne 985: Joe Blowme: stonicus: craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed"

How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks.

Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should.

And yet if that is all they meant then why did they not go arround and collect all the civilian guns? Because you are wrong and you know it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Let me guess, they stopped teaching history in your middle school right?

And now lets see if you kow the definition of well regulated in the late 1700's, im guessing you dont but please continue

if the Government could just create a few more laws and a few more rules then and only then we will have harmony omong all...

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.

It makes it easy to spot the morons, so don't discourage them.

Wayne 985: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner.

You're dead wrong about not all rights being equal (although it's very revealing about how you think... yuck, by the way)...

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.

Not necessarily.

We haven't had a problem with the Third Amendment, historically, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is of lesser value than the 13th. It just means that we don't haven't had recourse to use it much.

I mean, I have an electric drill in my house, and a couple of fire extinguishers. I use the drill quite a bit*. That doesn't mean the fire extinguisher is less important. It's just not used as much.

*Pun unintentional, but recognized.

Molavian: MadCat221: dittybopper: Fubini:

Ermm, they're impossible because they cost $20k, not because you're unable to buy one. maybe MP5's or Thompsons but you can buy a full rockin M16 for a fraction of that. Class 3 weapons are indeed very very difficult to purchase. The average transfer time frame is over 3 months. Epicedion: I don't care what you guarantee. You guaranteeing such a thing is totally worthless. Why don't you come back with some statistics on misuse or criminal use of firearms by police and compare them to the general public? Okay Link 91 firearm fatalities caused by police misconduct in 2010. Link 12,996 firearm murders in total for 2010. (12,905 excluding police misconduct.) Now, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Link) there were 794,300 police in the United States in 2010. According to the 2010 US Census (Link), there were 308,745,538 people total in the US. Subtract cops and you had 307,951,238 (not excluding other government agents, military, etc). Roughly speaking, that leaves a rate of about 1.14% for wrongful firearm fatalities among cops and 4.19% among civilians. stonicus: How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks. "Hey, do you have any idea what this guy is talking about?" "Sounds like he is talking out his ass..." D135: I wondering if there is actually any real gun debate or whether this is just the best viral marketing campaing for firearms ever created. /sales numbers dont lie Wayne 985: Epicedion: I don't care what you guarantee. You guaranteeing such a thing is totally worthless. Why don't you come back with some statistics on misuse or criminal use of firearms by police and compare them to the general public? Okay Link 91 firearm fatalities caused by police misconduct in 2010. Link 12,996 firearm murders in total for 2010. (12,905 excluding police misconduct.) Now, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Link) there were 794,300 police in the United States in 2010. According to the 2010 US Census (Link), there were 308,745,538 people total in the US. Subtract cops and you had 307,951,238 (not excluding other government agents, military, etc). Roughly speaking, that leaves a rate of about 1.14% for wrongful firearm fatalities among cops and 4.19% among civilians. To be clear, that's a murder rate among civilians and a much broader category of firearm "misconduct" fatalities for police, so the disparity is likely even larger. Wayne 985: craig328: Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year. Automatic weapons are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to own in the United States. Don't pretend like they're even remotely common. This is just flat-out wrong. It's been addressed before in this thread, but if you're willing to do the paperwork, you can get pre-1986 fully automatic weapons. The guy working across the street from me used to have a belt fed Browning that he had to tow on a trailer. Fully automatic weapons aren't as common because they're pricey, not because they're illegal. Wayne 985: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner. You're dead wrong about not all rights being equal (although it's very revealing about how you think... yuck, by the way)... 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. I would call them of equal - priceless - value. Having agents of a militaristic police state stationed in my own home, eating my food, listening to my private conversations, going through my things, taking my possessions as they desire, observing my activities within my own dwelling, reporting it all back to their government commanders and shackling me at the first observed transgression is as abhorrent to me as being sold and chained up in the fields on a plantation. To me, a government soldier-enforcer in every bedroom is slavery to a police state, and the very notion is as repugnant to me as slavery to a cotton mogul. PsiChick: ...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian. A whole year? Wow. They must be the most well-trained and responsible people on the planet. D135: I wondering if there is actually any real gun debate or whether this is just the best viral marketing campaing for firearms ever created. /sales numbers dont lie In that case the manufacturers were terribly unprepared and are currently failing to meet an unprecedented demand. The AR-15 is already popular rifle format made by dozens of companies, but none of them were ready for it to become the number one rifle in America. No one makes money from an empty store. /Democrats tried to dust off the old shtick of targeting unpopular guns. /In the last twenty years the market changed drastically. /I think they really stepped in it this time. PsiChick: Epicedion: PsiChick: 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 don't buy it, since the police aren't traipsing off to Violent Nutjobville to do their jobs. The violent nutjobs are in and around the general public. I'd say that the general public has a vested interest in being equivalently prepared to deal with the violent nutjobs, and the only difference is that the general public is legally discouraged from actively engaging with the violent nutjobs (but not severely restricted in the case that the violent nutjobs avail themselves to be unavoidable). ...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian. But they are people just like you and me and can go psycho just as easy as you or me... just looks a that Vegas cop who killed his family the other day. They are not super heroes. Just look at all the police corruption in Chicago and other cities. History, how does it work? 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. So. Much. THIS. If us peons can have nothing, then why should police be able to? We are pillaged by the same criminals they face, only we face them BEFORE the cops show up. If they think we don't have a need to protect ourselves, then how can they justify THEY have a need to protect themselves? This holds especially true for traffic cops. You mean to tell me that they NEED a firearm to write a speeding ticket? After all, the implication is if you don't stop for them, they can kill you over that speeding infraction. stonicus: How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks. Let's see here...how about we start listing the most recent examples that sink your ill-considered argument: Egypt, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam. That's just the ones you might have heard of. None of those had civilians with superior or even equal arms. Still, they fought governments who had satellites, carriers, jets and tanks...and they did (or are doing) well enough. In fact, when civilians take up arms in defense of their homes and families, they have a pretty good track record. Maybe consider making the acquaintance of a history book sometime. Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should. Well, yet another illiterate turd. How unsurprising. Tell you what, while I'd be glad to copy pasta the 2nd Amendment for you, you've already demonstrated a kryptonite weakness to reading. How about a nice video instead? Seriously, it's only 90 seconds. Just think...in less than 2 minutes, you can be exponentionally smarter than you are right now. Who wouldn't want that? Interesting how the paid posters swarm in during a short window of time, as if they were being instructed by a pit boss. Wayne 985: craig328: Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year. Automatic weapons are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to own in the United States. Don't pretend like they're even remotely common. I was referring to the less-threatening-to-your-underpants-aridity AR-15s. I just naturally assumed something even scarier would make you moist. rufus-t-firefly: Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators. So as a revenge tactic they should search people for whom there is no probable cause? Big Man On Campus: 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. They've tried this, with mixed results. [www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211] Criminals will just be better armed and organized. WHOOOSH! dittybopper: Carousel Beast: dittybopper: justtray: Is clearly not about not wanting police to have superior firepower. Its about trying to get someone to say, "police have to have it," so then you can say, "if they do we do too!" And that argument is just never going to gain traction amongst non gun nuts. You've got it backwards: We already have it. The police already have it. It's been that way for decades, and we're fine with it. Now the government (in this case, a local one) wants to make it so that only the police have it. Now do you see why we might be a tad upset? Why are you responding to an outright lying troll? I'm bored, that's why. Fair enough. Carry on. :) 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 Funny you should mention that... The "M16" designation is a military designation for an assault rifle designed and developed by Armalite(Later Colt) for the US Army for use in combat. Initially, it came with a 15 round magazine, but during the Vietnam Conflict, it was determined that it was woefully ineffective both in magazine size, operation, and ease of use. The rifle was a piece of junk that broke down constantly unless kept pristine clean, which is kinda hard to do when you are slogging around in the Vietnamese jungle. Soldiers were expending rounds too quickly (being that there were just 15 of them) and it was decided to remove "Full Auto" from these guns, and until the A3 revision, it remained the standard to have Burst in place of Auto. Other flaws were addresses in later revisions of the rifle. The AR-15 is the exact same gun, except lacking a three-round burst. The "M" is just a military designation. Even the military doesn't use "Full Auto" versions anymore, albeit for different reasons (or maybe for the same?). ZeroPly: Wayne 985: craig328: Hang on a second. Civilians ALREADY own weapons that are scaring the pants off people like you...and they don't result in "more harm than good" now. What logical process are you employing that leads you to believe that a civilian will be less adept with such a weapon than your average SWAT team member? Before you answer, it's fairly typical for a gun enthusiast (the folks who'd likely make up the bulk of people wanting to possess such items) to get more range time and trigger time on their weapons than police do. Many departments have their officers qualify only twice per year on their weapon. There are others who do it quarterly but even I (who wouldn't be confused with a gun enthusiast) go to the range more often than 4 times per year. Automatic weapons are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to own in the United States. Don't pretend like they're even remotely common. This is just flat-out wrong. It's been addressed before in this thread, but if you're willing to do the paperwork, you can get pre-1986 fully automatic weapons. The guy working across the street from me used to have a belt fed Browning that he had to tow on a trailer. Fully automatic weapons aren't as common because they're pricey, not because they're illegal. Exactly. Manufacture for the civilian market is now a crime. The "pricey-ness" is also a form of regulation via the National Firearms Act. HeWhoHasNoName: Wayne 985: HeWhoHasNoName: justtray: No, but not all rights are equal and if someone could present me with sound argument that taxing any of those things would have a statistically significant benefit, i would weigh that decision in the same manner. You're dead wrong about not all rights being equal (although it's very revealing about how you think... yuck, by the way)... 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. I would call them of equal - priceless - value. Having agents of a militaristic police state stationed in my own home, eating my food, listening to my private conversations, going through my things, taking my possessions as they desire, observing my activities within my own dwelling, reporting it all back to their government commanders and shackling me at the first observed transgression is as abhorrent to me as being sold and chained up in the fields on a plantation. To me, a government soldier-enforcer in every bedroom is slavery to a police state, and the very notion is as repugnant to me as slavery to a cotton mogul. My friend, if you think American soldiers bunking down in your house for the night is as bad as a woman being sold, mutilated, raped, and beaten to death at her "owner's" whim, then you are very sheltered and have a poor understanding of history. chairborne: It also kind of deconstructs all that idiotic talk about the 2nd amendment being outdated because of drones and tanks. First off, the military isn't full of robots with no free will. Second a drone or a tank is useless when the person behind it is removed from the equation. Third, veterans and other capable citizens *vastly* outnumber every cop, soldier and fed combined. That's always been kind of the point, any government bad enough to warrant the citizenry engaging in armed resistance is going to be farked. There is something else that is rarely talked about: A significant portion of the military would join an insurgency, if the motivation was confiscation of guns. That's because a very significant fraction of the military, especially combat arms specialties, come from people raised in the "Gun Culture". Why? Because they get to play with guns while getting paid to do so. My brother went 0300 as a Marine, and became a marksmanship instructor, precisely because of that. There was a survey done about 19 years ago where a group of Marines were asked about whether they would fire upon civilians who didn't turn in non-sporting firearms. The responses were predictable, to anyone familiar with the military and the gun culture. PsiChick: Epicedion: PsiChick: 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 don't buy it, since the police aren't traipsing off to Violent Nutjobville to do their jobs. The violent nutjobs are in and around the general public. I'd say that the general public has a vested interest in being equivalently prepared to deal with the violent nutjobs, and the only difference is that the general public is legally discouraged from actively engaging with the violent nutjobs (but not severely restricted in the case that the violent nutjobs avail themselves to be unavoidable). ...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian. The fundamental difference is regular gun owners are better trained with their firearms than the police. Gun owners tend to go to the range on a regular basis, many go every week. Police officers go once a year or two to practice up for their legally required qualification. They tend to be terrible shots. 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. That's only because one is more currently relevant than the other. Slavery is still very much alive in America, but the military is so over-funded that basic quartering would never be a problem for them. Maybe one day the situation will be different. All the amendments are equally important, some are just more current issues than the others. Wayne 985: Wayne 985: Epicedion: I don't care what you guarantee. You guaranteeing such a thing is totally worthless. Why don't you come back with some statistics on misuse or criminal use of firearms by police and compare them to the general public? Okay Link 91 firearm fatalities caused by police misconduct in 2010. Link 12,996 firearm murders in total for 2010. (12,905 excluding police misconduct.) Now, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Link) there were 794,300 police in the United States in 2010. According to the 2010 US Census (Link), there were 308,745,538 people total in the US. Subtract cops and you had 307,951,238 (not excluding other government agents, military, etc). Roughly speaking, that leaves a rate of about 1.14% for wrongful firearm fatalities among cops and 4.19% among civilians. To be clear, that's a murder rate among civilians and a much broader category of firearm "misconduct" fatalities for police, so the disparity is likely even larger. That's an irrelevant comparison, since it's only referencing Excessive Force complaints, and not general illegal use of firearms by police officers. That's on or off duty, since your goal here is to show that the police are so extra-special-responsible with guns that they get to use weapons you'd like to see disallowed to the general population (after all, what's stopping him from popping the 30-round AR-15 out of the trunk and going to town on the neighbor, other than a deep-rooted sense of civil responsibility). The fact that on-duty cops shooting and killing people unnecessarily is as high as 25% of the general population's homicide rate isn't a particularly trust-inspiring number. It's nice to know that a cop is only 25% as likely as a random guy on the subway to shoot me to death. FC Exile: Did they ban this guy as well? [i203.photobucket.com image 268x247] fake Epicedion: PsiChick: ...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian. A whole year? Wow. They must be the most well-trained and responsible people on the planet. Joe Blowme: But they are people just like you and me and can go psycho just as easy as you or me... just looks a that Vegas cop who killed his family the other day. They are not super heroes. Just look at all the police corruption in Chicago and other cities. History, how does it work? OgreMagi: The fundamental difference is regular gun owners are better trained with their firearms than the police. Gun owners tend to go to the range on a regular basis, many go every week. Police officers go once a year or two to practice up for their legally required qualification. They tend to be terrible shots. It would be so nice if people paid attention to the actual point I was making. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with the fact that, even if police officers tend to be undertrained assholes, even in my own opinion, a civilian and police officer are different things and logically will need different weapons. It's about the fundamental nature of 'police officer' v. 'civilian', not the current state of America's police force. dittybopper: chairborne: It also kind of deconstructs all that idiotic talk about the 2nd amendment being outdated because of drones and tanks. First off, the military isn't full of robots with no free will. Second a drone or a tank is useless when the person behind it is removed from the equation. Third, veterans and other capable citizens *vastly* outnumber every cop, soldier and fed combined. That's always been kind of the point, any government bad enough to warrant the citizenry engaging in armed resistance is going to be farked. There is something else that is rarely talked about: A significant portion of the military would join an insurgency, if the motivation was confiscation of guns. That's because a very significant fraction of the military, especially combat arms specialties, come from people raised in the "Gun Culture". Why? Because they get to play with guns while getting paid to do so. My brother went 0300 as a Marine, and became a marksmanship instructor, precisely because of that. There was a survey done about 19 years ago where a group of Marines were asked about whether they would fire upon civilians who didn't turn in non-sporting firearms. The responses were predictable, to anyone familiar with the military and the gun culture. I faintly remember that. Didn't a significant number of the Marines say they would shoot the officer giving the order? treesloth: rufus-t-firefly: Then the cops can set up shop outside and make sure that everyone who goes to the range is only carrying what is legal and arrest any violators. So as a revenge tactic they should search people for whom there is no probable cause? Yes by all means lets have people who think like this the only ones with guns. Lets ask the civil rights guys from the 50,60, 70s' if they think its ok to only let those fine men in blue have guns shall we? After all , they would never trample the rights of other even if ordered to right? PsiChick: Epicedion: PsiChick: ...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian. A whole year? Wow. They must be the most well-trained and responsible people on the planet. Joe Blowme: But they are people just like you and me and can go psycho just as easy as you or me... just looks a that Vegas cop who killed his family the other day. They are not super heroes. Just look at all the police corruption in Chicago and other cities. History, how does it work? OgreMagi: The fundamental difference is regular gun owners are better trained with their firearms than the police. Gun owners tend to go to the range on a regular basis, many go every week. Police officers go once a year or two to practice up for their legally required qualification. They tend to be terrible shots. It would be so nice if people paid attention to the actual point I was making. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with the fact that, even if police officers tend to be undertrained assholes, even in my own opinion, a civilian and police officer are different things and logically will need different weapons. It's about the fundamental nature of 'police officer' v. 'civilian', not the current state of America's police force. Fine, you are still wrong. They are civililans and are supposed to abide by the same laws as we do. In fact, they need to be held to a higher standard because they are in a position to abuse the trust (power) we have given to them. Wayne 985: You think Joe Blow down the street is going to efficiently use a sub-machine gun and automatic rifle, compared to a SWAT team? Those will likely cause more harm than good in civilian hands. A shotgun or a handgun or even an AR-15 will protect a homeowner. If something bizarre goes down and SWAT are called, then I'm more than willing to stand aside for them. You're not Rambo, even if you want to be. Depends on Joe Blow doesn't it? Me for instance, the only advantage most SWAT members have over me is in numbers, not in proficiency. I've known a few SWAT guys and I've got plenty of vet friends who are better. But you're right, I'm not Rambo. All *he* wanted was to go back to Bragg. Eff Bragg... Big Man On Campus: 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. They've tried this, with mixed results. [www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211] Criminals will just be better armed and organized. Not because assault weapons would also be banned for criminals so they won't have them. numbquil: Big Man On Campus: 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. They've tried this, with mixed results. [www.seeing-stars.com image 500x211] Criminals will just be better armed and organized. Not because assault weapons would also be banned for criminals so they won't have them. Sorry, I meant "No, because assault weapons would also be banned for criminals so they won't have them." PsiChick: It would be so nice if people paid attention to the actual point I was making. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with the fact that, even if police officers tend to be undertrained assholes, even in my own opinion, a civilian and police officer are different things and logically will need different weapons. It's about the fundamental nature of 'police officer' v. 'civilian', not the current state of America's police force. Police officers are civilians. Calling police officers non-civilians is simply wrong. Civilian = nonmilitary. The police are consequently not in a war with the general public, no matter how much 'war on crime' rhetoric is used. They don't need assault weapons any more than the general public, because they live and work where we live and work. If anyone needs assault weapons, it's the people who live in the places that are too dangerous for the police to work without them. OgreMagi: stonicus: craig328: But here's the rub: suppose, one day, our dysfunctional government decides that those rights ARE frivolous and superfluous and you don't need them. Guess which amendment represents the ultimate means to address the loss of the others. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time that Americans were actively revolting against a government that was taxing them without representation, that would seize personal property to house foreign soldiers (3rd Amendment), that forced a government on them for which the people had no say and other assorted affronts. The 2nd Amendment is the only one that not only states a right but then goes further and explicitly declares that the right "shall not be infringed" How cute... you still think the people can compete against the government in an armed conflict. That ship sailed many many years ago my friend. You'll never be able to compete with satellites and aircraft carriers and fighter jets and tanks. Also, the right to bear arms is contingent on being part of a well regulated militia, not to just have them willy-nilly. Our founding fathers' laws and rules on being a well regulated militia are quite specific and are no-where near the context of "everyone can just own guns". Gun ownership came with a shiat-ton of regulations and rules and requirements, as it should. How many times do you have to be referred to DC vs Heller before it finally sinks in that it is an individual right, not a collective right? Or are you simply too stupid to figure out the farking obvious? And FYI, the militia is defined as "everybody who isn't in the military or law enforcement". I'm fine with the current ruling and situation. Just pointing out that the intent of the founding fathers was ruled impotent by the Heller decision. So just curious as to why people keep bringing it up. Don't say "militia, fight tyranny, revolution, etc" Just say "court said we could, no other reason." (written to the proverbial you, by this part in the thread, the replies and quotes are so intermingled). PsiChick: Epicedion: PsiChick: 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 don't buy it, since the police aren't traipsing off to Violent Nutjobville to do their jobs. The violent nutjobs are in and around the general public. I'd say that the general public has a vested interest in being equivalently prepared to deal with the violent nutjobs, and the only difference is that the general public is legally discouraged from actively engaging with the violent nutjobs (but not severely restricted in the case that the violent nutjobs avail themselves to be unavoidable). ...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian. Actually, the amount of training varies greatly by unit and city. Many police departments do require a 1 year certification course, and some on the job training, but most departments do not provide "years" of on the job training, other than experience. I've got a LOT of law enforcement colleagues and training partners, and I mix with a lot of officers, new and old, at various training seminars, and outside of SWAT, most department officers that come to various emergency response and other types of classes are ridiculously inept and undertrained, and most of the civilians in the class are usually better equipped, because they don't suffer from the "I'm a cop, therefore I'm somehow a super badass that doesn't have to deal with all these rules" issues. In fact, where a lot of the guys i see fall flat fail is going slow and learning, rather than rushing in and acting like they already know everything. Cops that are good, are good because of experience doing their job. They are also the guys who spend time and energy to go out to training seminars and engage in voluntary extra training in a lot of fields above and beyond what they need for their day to day activities. A larger part of that group, however, are little better trained than the average TactiCool Joe who put on a badge and went through the training academy. Any assertion that police are now some sort of paramilitary force that are not civilians but are some special excerpt of society is both laughable and, in the general sense of things, scary. OgreMagi: The fundamental difference is regular gun owners are better trained with their firearms than the police. Gun owners tend to go to the range on a regular basis, many go every week. Police officers go once a year or two to practice up for their legally required qualification. They tend to be terrible shots. Except, of course, those among them who are also gun nuts. If you watch the video of the Empire State Shooting, you can see that one officer does everything right (Turns sideways to reduce profile, finds some cover, pulls gun, uses two hands to shoot, has a good stance, immediately holsters gun afterwards), and the other one doesn't appear to do anything right: He's shooting with one hand (bad), moving while shooting (bad), and doesn't seem to care where his bullets might be going. I bet I can tell which one goes to the range for fun, and which one only when he had to qualify. PsiChick: ...in my own opinion, a civilian and police officer are different things and logically will need different weapons. It's about the fundamental nature of 'police officer' v. 'civilian', not the current state of America's police force. I'm curious about this mindset and would like to ask a question. There are those who claim that the fundamental nature of the job of a police officer suggests they should be better armed than other, non-police civilians. What sort of situations do you discern the police requiring superior arms that civilians would not have an equal need to have? Bank robberies? Those people in the bank are civilians and would be the first people with the opportunity to respond. Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond. Carjackings? Rapes? To such I'd ask how often a victim of such a crime has a personal police protector there 24/7 to ensure the presence of the police weapon to deter the crime? Seriously, though...what situations do police encounter that require the presence of such weapons such that the situation doesn't affect civilians first and foremost? PsiChick: Epicedion: PsiChick: ...Because there is a very fundamental difference between the training and job of a police officer and the training and job of an average civilian. A police officer is not a civilian, they complete at least a year of college training and many years of on-the-job training. There is a reason for that. You cannot take a civilian, put them in a police uniform, and have a police officer. You have a civilian in a costume. A police officer is not a civilian. A whole year? Wow. They must be the most well-trained and responsible people on the planet. Joe Blowme: But they are people just like you and me and can go psycho just as easy as you or me... just looks a that Vegas cop who killed his family the other day. They are not super heroes. Just look at all the police corruption in Chicago and other cities. History, how does it work? OgreMagi: The fundamental difference is regular gun owners are better trained with their firearms than the police. Gun owners tend to go to the range on a regular basis, many go every week. Police officers go once a year or two to practice up for their legally required qualification. They tend to be terrible shots. It would be so nice if people paid attention to the actual point I was making. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with the fact that, even if police officers tend to be undertrained assholes, even in my own opinion, a civilian and police officer are different things and logically will need different weapons. It's about the fundamental nature of 'police officer' v. 'civilian', not the current state of America's police force. No, it happens to be about constitutional rights. As other have stated, there is a way to amend the constitution but no one seems to want to try that because thy know it would fail so they will try to doit via executive orders and such. Civilians ofter face the same dangers as police, only we do it before the cops arrive. OgreMagi: The fundamental difference is regular gun owners are better trained with their firearms than the police. Gun owners tend to go to the range on a regular basis, many go every week. Police officers go once a year or two to practice up for their legally required qualification. They tend to be terrible shots. OF COURSE you have a citation for these claims. chairborne: Wayne 985: You think Joe Blow down the street is going to efficiently use a sub-machine gun and automatic rifle, compared to a SWAT team? Those will likely cause more harm than good in civilian hands. A shotgun or a handgun or even an AR-15 will protect a homeowner. If something bizarre goes down and SWAT are called, then I'm more than willing to stand aside for them. You're not Rambo, even if you want to be. Depends on Joe Blow doesn't it? Me for instance, the only advantage most SWAT members have over me is in numbers, not in proficiency. I've known a few SWAT guys and I've got plenty of vet friends who are better. But you're right, I'm not Rambo. All *he* wanted was to go back to Bragg. Eff Bragg... And for the record i am proficient with the M-16, M249, and M2. Not the mp5 though so he may have a point on the smg thingy. dittybopper: OgreMagi: The fundamental difference is regular gun owners are better trained with their firearms than the police. Gun owners tend to go to the range on a regular basis, many go every week. Police officers go once a year or two to practice up for their legally required qualification. They tend to be terrible shots. Except, of course, those among them who are also gun nuts. If you watch the video of the Empire State Shooting, you can see that one officer does everything right (Turns sideways to reduce profile, finds some cover, pulls gun, uses two hands to shoot, has a good stance, immediately holsters gun afterwards), and the other one doesn't appear to do anything right: He's shooting with one hand (bad), moving while shooting (bad), and doesn't seem to care where his bullets might be going. I bet I can tell which one goes to the range for fun, and which one only when he had to qualify. aka the one who probably didnt shoot one of the nine innocent bystanders or the one who probably shot most if not all of them. OgreMagi: I faintly remember that. Didn't a significant number of the Marines say they would shoot the officer giving the order? Here is the footnote about that particular question: You can read the entire survey, and the results, here at this link. PsiChick: It would be so nice if people paid attention to the actual point I was making. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with the fact that, even if police officers tend to be undertrained assholes, even in my own opinion, a civilian and police officer are different things and logically will need different weapons. It's about the fundamental nature of 'police officer' v. 'civilian', not the current state of America's police force. The point a lot of people are making are that police are civilians. That apparently cannot be said enough. They are not military. They are civilians. Law enforcement is not a military group. Your local police are not part of the military command. Your state police are not related to the national guard or army bases. Federal police work is done by Department of Justice, not the Pentagon. Police are civilians. dr-shotgun: AbiNormal: It doesn't specify which type of arms you have a right to. And that's the rub, isn't it? We do place limits on Constitutional rights, absolutely. And we do so only when there is absolute clarity that the limitation of that right will have a meaningful, demonstrable impact on public safety. This is the contention of this debate; there is no farking data to say that banning so called "assault weapons" will have any meaningful impact on actual public safety. 1- They are used in a statistically insignificant portion of overall firearm crimes (less than 2%). 2- There is no data to support that the use of an "assault weapon" has any impact on the lethality of those crimes (i.e. they would just as easily happened had another weapon been used). 3- There is data to suggest that the limitation of these weapons in civilian hands would be detrimental to the cause of legal self defense (especially magazine capacity bans). On this last point, I would say that there are almost no scenarios where a 30 round AR magazine has been necessary for a citizen to defend themselves, but there are *many* cases where civilians have needed more than 10 rounds to adequately defend themselves. There is also little/no data to suggest that magazine capacity has an impact on actual firearm crimes though. So yes, we do understand that Constitutional rights have limitations. Where we disagree is in the belief that limiting the 2nd Amendment, as is being proposed currently, offers any net benefit to society. I am not for or against gun ownership. I don't think the mass shootings that have occurred happened because we have access to guns. 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. /I was curious what kind of response that statement would get Epicedion: That's an irrelevant comparison, since it's only referencing Excessive Force complaints, and not general illegal use of firearms by police officers. That's on or off duty, since your goal here is to show that the police are so extra-special-responsible with guns that they get to use weapons you'd like to see disallowed to the general population (after all, what's stopping him from popping the 30-round AR-15 out of the trunk and going to town on the neighbor, other than a deep-rooted sense of civil responsibility). The fact that on-duty cops shooting and killing people unnecessarily is as high as 25% of the general population's homicide rate isn't a particularly trust-inspiring number. It's nice to know that a cop is only 25% as likely as a random guy on the subway to shoot me to death. You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians? You implied cops were more violent than civilians and demanded evidence to prove otherwise. I gave you evidence to show that, not only were you mistaken, but the murder rate alone among civilians was four times higher than for police officers. You wanted proof that police officers were more disciplined and law-abiding. There you go. You've lost, friend. Give it up. dittybopper: There was a survey done about 19 years ago where a group of Marines were asked about whether they would fire upon civilians who didn't turn in non-sporting firearms. Tell them they're going after "McVeigh's Raiders" and the Army couldn't get the job done and you'll have volunteers out your ass. stonicus: I'm fine with the current ruling and situation. Just pointing out that the intent of the founding fathers was ruled impotent by the Heller decision. So just curious as to why people keep bringing it up. Don't say "militia, fight tyranny, revolution, etc" Just say "court said we could, no other reason." (written to the proverbial you, by this part in the thread, the replies and quotes are so intermingled). Like much of what you've said, that's pretty damned wrong. Look, it's not hard to find (even if it invalidates most of the things you're saying). Being accurate in a debate is kind of important. From the text of the Heller decision: Held: 1. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. What's nice though is that the decision then goes to an additional length to explain why the language is the way it is: The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. It can't be made a whole lot clearer than that. The foremost scholars on the constitution, who use it as an active tool in the judicial considerations every day, have affirmed what most people already know and have been kind enough to correct the false notions that some (including, unfortunately, many people in this thread) hold. craig328: I'm curious about this mindset and would like to ask a question. There are those who claim that the fundamental nature of the job of a police officer suggests they should be better armed than other, non-police civilians. What sort of situations do you discern the police requiring superior arms that civilians would not have an equal need to have? Bank robberies? Those people in the bank are civilians and would be the first people with the opportunity to respond. Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond. Carjackings? Rapes? To such I'd ask how often a victim of such a crime has a personal police protector there 24/7 to ensure the presence of the police weapon to deter the crime? Seriously, though...what situations do police encounter that require the presence of such weapons such that the situation doesn't affect civilians first and foremost? Not 'superior'. 'Different'. I hate the idea of police with superior firepower to average people (and this makes the second time I've said this, so after this I'm just going to call anyone who goes with the 'YOU WANT POLICE TO HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS!' angle an idiot), but an average person doesn't need a nightstick. The average police officer, who is actively intervening in dangerous situations, probably does. Also, your argument about police being stretched too thin to respond has nothing to do with the above point. Whether there are enough police or not does not change the job description. Kit Fister: Actually, the amount of training varies greatly by unit and city. Many police departments do require a 1 year certification course, and some on the job training, but most departments do not provide "years" of on the job training, other than experience. I've got a LOT of law enforcement colleagues and training partners, and I mix with a lot of officers, new and old, at various training seminars, and outside of SWAT, most department officers that come to various emergency response and other types of classes are ridiculously inept and undertrained, and most of the civilians in the class are usually better equipped, because they don't suffer from the "I'm a cop, therefore I'm somehow a super badass that doesn't have to deal with all these rules" issues. In fact, where a lot of the guys i see fall flat fail is going slow and learning, rather than rushing in and acting like they already know everything. Cops that are good, are good because of experience doing their job. They are also the guys who spend time and energy to go out to training seminars and engage in voluntary extra training in a lot of fields above and beyond what they need for their day to day activities. A larger part of that group, however, are little better trained than the average TactiCool Joe who put on a badge and went through the training academy. Any assertion that police are now some sort of paramilitary force that are not civilians but are some special excerpt of society is both laughable and, in the general sense of things, scary. Well, the training part I got off Google when I was doing research for a character. However, I am not using 'different' as synonymous with 'special', please don't confuse that. The police are different. A civilian does not hold the job description of 'confronts criminals and goes into dangerous situations to resolve them'. And yes, the police are a paramilitary force, because 'paramilitary' means 'a group that uses military rankings and traditions to perform a task but are not formally a national military'. I don't care if America's police all moonlight as strippers on Broadway; it doesn't change the job description. Epicedion: Police officers are civilians. Calling police officers non-civilians is simply wrong. Civilian = nonmilitary. The police are consequently not in a war with the general public, no matter how much 'war on crime' rhetoric is used. They don't need assault weapons any more than the general public, because they live and work where we live and work. If anyone needs assault weapons, it's the people who live in the places that are too dangerous for the police to work without them. No, a civilian in the typical sense of the word is not simply nonmilitary, it also applies to those who are not attached to paramilitary organizations. In common usage, words occasionally have more than their dictionary definition. And I DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLICE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED. OgreMagi: Fine, you are still wrong. They are civililans and are supposed to abide by the same laws as we do. In fact, they need to be held to a higher standard because they are in a position to abuse the trust (power) we have given to them. Unless you're arguing your average citizen can put someone under an actual arrest (not Citizen's Arrest, they're different), methinks I spot a problem there. /And seriously, all of you: I am not going to say this again. I do not believe police are 'special' or even not wholeheartedly corrupt. I DO NOT BELIEVE POLICE SHOULD EVER HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS. I am really getting sick of saying this. Whether or not your IT guy slept with your wife has jack shiat to do with whether your IT guy will use a thumb drive. Yellow Beard: Molavian: MadCat221: dittybopper: Fubini: Ermm, they're impossible because they cost$20k, not because you're unable to buy one.

maybe MP5's or Thompsons but you can buy a full rockin M16 for a fraction of that. Class 3 weapons are indeed very very difficult to purchase. The average transfer time frame is over 3 months.

You can buy both Thompson and MP5 submachine guns. Check your local and state laws for details.

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.

odinsposse: The point a lot of people are making are that police are civilians. That apparently cannot be said enough. They are not military. They are civilians. Law enforcement is not a military group. Your local police are not part of the military command. Your state police are not related to the national guard or army bases. Federal police work is done by Department of Justice, not the Pentagon. Police are civilians.

Wayne 985: Epicedion: That's an irrelevant comparison, since it's only referencing Excessive Force complaints, and not general illegal use of firearms by police officers. That's on or off duty, since your goal here is to show that the police are so extra-special-responsible with guns that they get to use weapons you'd like to see disallowed to the general population (after all, what's stopping him from popping the 30-round AR-15 out of the trunk and going to town on the neighbor, other than a deep-rooted sense of civil responsibility).

The fact that on-duty cops shooting and killing people unnecessarily is as high as 25% of the general population's homicide rate isn't a particularly trust-inspiring number. It's nice to know that a cop is only 25% as likely as a random guy on the subway to shoot me to death.

You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians? You implied cops were more violent than civilians and demanded evidence to prove otherwise. I gave you evidence to show that, not only were you mistaken, but the murder rate alone among civilians was four times higher than for police officers. You wanted proof that police officers were more disciplined and law-abiding. There you go.

You've lost, friend. Give it up.

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

PsiChick: craig328: I'm curious about this mindset and would like to ask a question. There are those who claim that the fundamental nature of the job of a police officer suggests they should be better armed than other, non-police civilians. What sort of situations do you discern the police requiring superior arms that civilians would not have an equal need to have?

Bank robberies? Those people in the bank are civilians and would be the first people with the opportunity to respond.

Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

Carjackings? Rapes? To such I'd ask how often a victim of such a crime has a personal police protector there 24/7 to ensure the presence of the police weapon to deter the crime?

Seriously, though...what situations do police encounter that require the presence of such weapons such that the situation doesn't affect civilians first and foremost?

Not 'superior'. 'Different'. I  hate the idea of police with superior firepower to average people (and this makes the second time I've said this, so after this I'm just going to call anyone who goes with the 'YOU WANT POLICE TO HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS!' angle an idiot), but an average person doesn't need a nightstick. The average police officer, who is actively intervening in dangerous situations, probably does.

Also, your argument about police being stretched too thin to respond has nothing to do with the above point. Whether there are enough police or not does not change the job description.

Kit Fister: Actually, the amount of training varies greatly by unit and city. Many police departments do require a 1 year certification course, and some on the job training, but most departments do not provide "years" of on the job training, other than experience.

I've got a LOT of law enforcem ...

Sorry, but the law, and society, is not written to see police as special, and it has only come about that they are (in an accepted, socially acceptable way and not a thug-with-a-badge way) in the past 20 years or so.

The police SHOULD NOT be "Different", as you use the term, from the other citizenry in any way but their job being to confront criminals and enforce the laws. They are meant to be governed under the same rules as everyone else, and are held to the same standards.

Also, I would point out that while it's the job of the Cops to go confront a criminal, It's MY job to confront a criminal who comes to confront ME.

Now STOP with the glorification of cops. They would not NEED to be a militarized unit if the citizenry actually took more of an active role in policing their own. Just think, if more kids had positive role models and good parenting, maybe gangs wouldn't be so popular? And if drugs were legal, none of them would need to engage in violent behavior to protect an ILLEGAL trade.

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.

If cops are going to use high-power weapons, I want them to have LOTS of practice.

Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers.

PsiChick: No, a civilian in the typical sense of the word is not simply nonmilitary, it also applies to those who are not attached to  paramilitary organizations. In common usage, words occasionally have more than their dictionary definition. And I DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLICE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED.

Yes, in the typical sense of the word, civilian = nonmilitary. CIVILIAN IS THE WORD FOR NONMILITARY.

Whoops I think I had the same capslock problem you had. Anyway, the definition of civilian is "nonmilitary." Anyone who is not in the military is a civilian. Rules and regulations regarding civilians cover everyone who's not in the military. International courts, when referring to nonmilitary targets call them "civilian." Suggesting that police are not civilians is so incredibly wrong there's really no way to respond to you other than to tell you you're wrong wrong wrong wrongity wrong, wrongy wrong-wrong wrongity wrong.

craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.

Epicedion: Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers.

PsiChick: No, a civilian in the typical sense of the word is not simply nonmilitary, it also applies to those who are not attached to  paramilitary organizations. In common usage, words occasionally have more than their dictionary definition. And I DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLICE NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS, AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED.

Yes, in the typical sense of the word, civilian = nonmilitary. CIVILIAN IS THE WORD FOR NONMILITARY.

Whoops I think I had the same capslock problem you had. Anyway, the definition of civilian is "nonmilitary." Anyone who is not in the military is a civilian. Rules and regulations regarding civilians cover everyone who's not in the military. International courts, when referring to nonmilitary targets call them "civilian." Suggesting that police are not civilians is so incredibly wrong there's really no way to respond to you other than to tell you you're wrong wrong wrong wrongity wrong, wrongy wrong-wrong wrongity wrong.

Police are, essentially, hall monitors. They are still kids in the class, they just have the duty to watch OTHER kids because they are (supposed to be) extra trustworthy with also making sure OTHERS are following the rules. One of the biggest issues today, however, is that with Cops being the monitors, those that want to get away with breaking the law can do so, since they're the ones who control detection of crime...

PsiChick: Not 'superior'. 'Different'. I  hate the idea of police with superior firepower to average people (and this makes the second time I've said this, so after this I'm just going to call anyone who goes with the 'YOU WANT POLICE TO HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS!' angle an idiot), but an average person doesn't need a nightstick. The average police officer, who is actively intervening in dangerous situations, probably does.

Also, your argument about police being stretched too thin to respond has nothing to do with the above point. Whether there are enough police or not does not change the job description.

Pardon me but your original statement was a rebuttal to someone who said:

"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."

And your response to that was:

"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...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."

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.

PsiChick: odinsposse: The point a lot of people are making are that police are civilians. That apparently cannot be said enough. They are not military. They are civilians. Law enforcement is not a military group. Your local police are not part of the military command. Your state police are not related to the national guard or army bases. Federal police work is done by Department of Justice, not the Pentagon. Police are civilians.

Accepted, however:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian

A civilian under international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces or other militia. Civilians are distinct from combatants. They are afforded a degree of legal protection from the effects of war and military occupation. The term "civilian" is also often inappropriately used metaphorically to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by civilian law enforcement agencies, which often adopt rank structures emulating those of military units.

Hence, law enforcement is comprised of paramilitary organizations, which themselves are comprised of civilians .

PsiChick: odinsposse: The point a lot of people are making are that police are civilians. That apparently cannot be said enough. They are not military. They are civilians. Law enforcement is not a military group. Your local police are not part of the military command. Your state police are not related to the national guard or army bases. Federal police work is done by Department of Justice, not the Pentagon. Police are civilians.

A civilian organization that uses military designations.

Eirik: craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.

And a number of neighborhoods spared looting and attack because there were armed people living there willing to shoot back.

Safety and security, and social peace are an illusion, broken when the collective will to accept the social order is diminished beyond the point of reason.

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

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

Eirik: craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.

I know. Just seems that many have short memories...and way too many people think that America has some magical quality that voids the kinds of problems seen in the rest of the world (places like Libya, Egypt and Greece for example). That "magical quality" is a constitution that specifically limits the power of government...and the most direct way to do that is via the 2nd Amendment...which some folks are trying to tear down.

Epicedion: Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers...

I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.

craig328: PsiChick: Not 'superior'. 'Different'. I  hate the idea of police with superior firepower to average people (and this makes the second time I've said this, so after this I'm just going to call anyone who goes with the 'YOU WANT POLICE TO HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS!' angle an idiot), but an average person doesn't need a nightstick. The average police officer, who is actively intervening in dangerous situations, probably does.

Also, your argument about police being stretched too thin to respond has nothing to do with the above point. Whether there are enough police or not does not change the job description.

Pardon me but your original statement was a rebuttal to someone who said:

"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."

And your response to that was:

"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...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."

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 possessabl ...

Funny enough, there's not a single thing a Police Officer can own and carry that I cannot, save for two:

- Taser
- assisted-opening knife.

I can own the baton, the cuffs, the shotguns, the handguns, the ammo, the body armor, the pepper spray/mace, etc. etc. etc.

Kit Fister: Eirik: craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.

And a number of neighborhoods spared looting and attack because there were armed people living there willing to shoot back.

Safety and security, and social peace are an illusion, broken when the collective will to accept the social order is diminished beyond the point of reason.

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.

Wayne 985: I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.

I don't have them. I'm not the one arguing that police deserve special dispensation to possess weapons deemed to dangerous to be owned by the general public.

Wayne 985: Epicedion: Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers...

I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_offi c ers_in_the_United_States

How about you start there, sparky? That's a good boy.

What is even crazier is the fact that Obama is giving tanks and F-16 to the muslim brother hood yet thinks americans do not need small arms.... crazy shiat

Kit Fister: ... The police SHOULD NOT be "Different", as you use the term, from the other citizenry in any way but their job being to confront criminals and enforce the laws. They are meant to be governed under the same rules as everyone else, and are held to the same standards...

By that rationale, we shouldn't allow them to engage in high speed pursuits of murderers, the power to make arrests, the power to operate jails, or... Well, heck, any policing ability at all. The entire point of police is that they're granted special rights and privileges to fight crime. That includes superior equipment.

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.

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

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

Pretty amusing isn't it? Post facts that defeat their preconceived notions and you're a liar and/ or facts aren't true.

And look at their desperate clinging to the semantic police/civilian argument still. It's just like the cosmetic and other appeal to knowledge fallacies. Endless amusement here. The more they speak, the more they hurt their position, and they're blissfully unaware

Kit Fister: Safety and security, and social peace are an illusion, broken when the collective will to accept the social order is diminished beyond the point of reason.

"THARS MESSICANS IN MUH DRABWAY!"

dittybopper: OgreMagi: I faintly remember that. Didn't a significant number of the Marines say they would shoot the officer giving the order?

Here is the footnote about that particular question:

[i46.tinypic.com image 593x611]

You can read the entire survey, and the results, here at this link.

Hell. Yes.
Most people don't realize, taking an oath in the Armed Forces of the US requires swearing to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic above all else.

DeathCipris: Yellow Beard: Molavian: MadCat221: dittybopper: Fubini:

Ermm, they're impossible because they cost $20k, not because you're unable to buy one. maybe MP5's or Thompsons but you can buy a full rockin M16 for a fraction of that. Class 3 weapons are indeed very very difficult to purchase. The average transfer time frame is over 3 months. You can buy both Thompson and MP5 submachine guns. Check your local and state laws for details. I know you can but they do cost$20,000 and up.

Epicedion: Wayne 985: I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.

I don't have them. I'm not the one arguing that police deserve special dispensation to possess weapons deemed to dangerous to be owned by the general public.

You're the one advocating a change in the law.

Kit Fister: Wayne 985: Epicedion: Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers...

I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_offi c ers_in_the_United_States

How about you start there, sparky? That's a good boy.

Yooouuu... Might want to read your own link. For 2010, for example, the overwhelming majority pertain to those in uniform (most of which are justified, eg, "attacked officers with a large kitchen knife). There are three instances of off-duty shootings, two of which involved self-defense.

But thank you for making my case.

PsiChick: odinsposse: The point a lot of people are making are that police are civilians. That apparently cannot be said enough. They are not military. They are civilians. Law enforcement is not a military group. Your local police are not part of the military command. Your state police are not related to the national guard or army bases. Federal police work is done by Department of Justice, not the Pentagon. Police are civilians.

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.

Wayne 985: By that rationale, we shouldn't allow them to engage in high speed pursuits of murderers, the power to make arrests, the power to operate jails, or... Well, heck, any policing ability at all. The entire point of police is that they're granted special rights and privileges to fight crime. That includes superior equipment.

Except, high speed pursuits are deemed extremely dangerous... http://www.tricities.com/news/local/article_fcf899ee-56d8-11e2-a8ac-00 1a4bcf6878.html -- among others.

The power to make arrests is not solely with the police, and civilians at large are further empowered to make arrests. The difference is that police, with proper legal paperwork (a warrant) may detain and physically restrain a suspect where a civilian, while lawfully able to detain, cannot physically restrain a suspect (and court cases go both ways on this subject.)

The police do not operate jails. Jails are established by municipalities and local, state, or federal department of corrections. Police are not involved in the safety, security, or operations. Corrections Officers and civilians hired by the DoC are.

Further, no special rights or dispensations are required to perform the primary acts of policing beyond those illustrated above. The act of investigating crimes and the like are only thrust upon the police as that is their job description, much like a janitor is there to clean the shiatters. By your logic, Janitors should be the only ones who are qualified to buy mops or brooms, as they require special equipment for cleaning above and beyond the average citizen and are empowered with special rights to clean up after me.

With regards to crime prevention, the act of "patroling" by a police officer is no different than citizens independently organizing a neighborhood watch, and actively acting to deter crime for themselves.

Wayne 985: You're the one advocating a change in the law.

No, I'm arguing against further restricting the public and not restricting the police from having "assault weapons," which would constitute a change in the law. Try to keep up.

Wayne 985: Epicedion: Wayne 985: I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.

I don't have them. I'm not the one arguing that police deserve special dispensation to possess weapons deemed to dangerous to be owned by the general public.

You're the one advocating a change in the law.

Kit Fister: Wayne 985: Epicedion: Wayne 985: You mean like the civilian murder rate is only referencing reported instances, and not "general" murder by civilians?

Police are civilians. And no, like the fact that police aren't on-duty to commit excessive force violations all day every day. They only get those while at work, and so the excessive force firearms death rate only accounts for a fraction of illegal deaths committed by police officers...

I gave you my evidence, now I'm going to ask for yours. Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_offi c ers_in_the_United_States

How about you start there, sparky? That's a good boy.

Yooouuu... Might want to read your own link. For 2010, for example, the overwhelming majority pertain to those in uniform (most of which are justified, eg, "attacked officers with a large kitchen knife). There are three instances of off-duty shootings, two of which involved self-defense.

But thank you for making my case.

You asked for a list of killings, You did not specify, and it was not my argument.

I would point out that under similar circumstances, an ordinary civilian is both entitled and legally empowered to equally act in self defense, making the case a moot point. The only difference is qualified immunity (we send you in to talk to the nut job, so if you kill him in self defense, we won't ask too many questions).

OgreMagi: Kit Fister: Eirik: craig328: Civil insurrections? Again, these happen in public so the first people to respond would be other citizens. Indeed, as we saw in New Orleans, Los Angeles and that I personally witnessed in St. Petersburg, FL several years back, police can often be stretched too thin to respond.

There were a number of businesses that survived the LA Riots because the owners set up shop on top with rifles and a willingness to use them. The looters moved on to other businesses.

And a number of neighborhoods spared looting and attack because there were armed people living there willing to shoot back.

Safety and security, and social peace are an illusion, broken when the collective will to accept the social order is diminished beyond the point of reason.

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.

Those police officers recognized the importance of a safe work environment. For criminals.

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

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

Pretty amusing isn't it? Post facts that defeat their preconceived notions and you're a liar and/ or facts aren't true.

And look at their desperate clinging to the semantic police/civilian argument still. It's just like the cosmetic and other appeal to knowledge fallacies. Endless amusement here. The more they speak, the more they hurt their position, and they're blissfully unaware

And amazingly, none of it matters because this is the internet and neither side is ever going to relent and listen to the other! we're all just going to keep making fun of each other rather than actually being willing to listen and understand and, *gasp* compromise!

Yellow Beard: DeathCipris: Yellow Beard: Molavian: MadCat221: dittybopper: Fubini:

Ermm, they're impossible because they cost $20k, not because you're unable to buy one. maybe MP5's or Thompsons but you can buy a full rockin M16 for a fraction of that. Class 3 weapons are indeed very very difficult to purchase. The average transfer time frame is over 3 months. You can buy both Thompson and MP5 submachine guns. Check your local and state laws for details. I know you can but they do cost$20,000 and up.

Ohhh, you were referring to the 20k price tag, not the impossible.
Gotcha. Sorry for the mixup.

Kit Fister: Wayne 985: By that rationale, we shouldn't allow them to engage in high speed pursuits of murderers, the power to make arrests, the power to operate jails, or... Well, heck, any policing ability at all. The entire point of police is that they're granted special rights and privileges to fight crime. That includes superior equipment.

Except, high speed pursuits are deemed extremely dangerous... http://www.tricities.com/news/local/article_fcf899ee-56d8-11e2-a8ac-00 1a4bcf6878.html -- among others.

The power to make arrests is not solely with the police, and civilians at large are further empowered to make arrests. The difference is that police, with proper legal paperwork (a warrant) may detain and physically restrain a suspect where a civilian, while lawfully able to detain, cannot physically restrain a suspect (and court cases go both ways on this subject.)

The police do not operate jails. Jails are established by municipalities and local, state, or federal department of corrections. Police are not involved in the safety, security, or operations. Corrections Officers and civilians hired by the DoC are.

Further, no special rights or dispensations are required to perform the primary acts of policing beyond those illustrated above. The act of investigating crimes and the like are only thrust upon the police as that is their job description, much like a janitor is there to clean the shiatters. By your logic, Janitors should be the only ones who are qualified to buy mops or brooms, as they require special equipment for cleaning above and beyond the average citizen and are empowered with special rights to clean up after me.

With regards to crime prevention, the act of "patroling" by a police officer is no different than citizens independently organizing a neighborhood watch, and actively acting to deter crime for themselves.

When janitors are making life and death decisions about public safety, that'll be a valid comparison.

For the record, it sounds like you're in favor of disbanding police entirely.

Wayne 985: how many police officers murder people in their off time.

Jersey, RI, or Mass?

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

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

Pretty amusing isn't it? Post facts that defeat their preconceived notions and you're a liar and/ or facts aren't true.

And look at their desperate clinging to the semantic police/civilian argument still. It's just like the cosmetic and other appeal to knowledge fallacies. Endless amusement here. The more they speak, the more they hurt their position, and they're blissfully unaware

Very amusing to see 2 knuckle heads who can seem to read and understand 2 simple sentences in the constitution, now that is a fact.

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.

Wayne 985: When janitors are making life and death decisions about public safety, that'll be a valid comparison.

For the record, it sounds like you're in favor of disbanding police entirely.

Nah, I like having a guy that gets paid well to exercise his rambo/authoritarian complex and who gets to be a meat shield for me. Means that I can go to the range or do other shiat and not have to personally go out and deal with the human refuse myself. You know how hard it is to get vomit out of the back seat of a car?

Now, if I have to deal with a crook because I'm the only one there to do it, sure, I'll step up, but...meh. The football game's on. I'd rather let someone else dick around with their time to stop those junkies.

In all seriousness, Police are fine. They do a job I don't want to have to do. But I don't believe they should be as heavily armed as some military units with access to tanks and explosives and all those toys, because as a society, we should not be in a position where anything is so dire that that's necessary.

Epicedion: Wayne 985: You're the one advocating a change in the law.

No, I'm arguing against further restricting the public and not restricting the police from having "assault weapons," which would constitute a change in the law. Try to keep up.

The change you're proposing is restricting police from owning assault weapons, which they are legally permitted to do (and with good reason).

I am not in favor of banning semi-automatic rifles. I am, however, in favor of allowing police access to weaponry currently restricted to non-police civilians. In other words, I favor the status quo concerning firearm restrictions. You do not.

Kit Fister: You asked for a list of killings, You did not specify...

"Show me the stats on how many police officers murder people in their off time."

This was the post you responded to.

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...)

PsiChick: And yes, the police are a paramilitary force, because 'paramilitary' means 'a group that uses military rankings and traditions to perform a task but are not formally a national military'. I don't care if America's police all moonlight as strippers on Broadway; it doesn't change the job description.

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.

Wayne 985: The change you're proposing

No.

Epicedion: Wayne 985: The change you're proposing

No.

Dude, just give it up. Please.

I get it. You hate cops and you're not in favor of gun laws unless they stick it to the man. You're stunningly transparent and it would simpler if you just admitted you don't like police.

Wayne 985: Dude, just give it up. Please.

I get it. You hate cops and you're not in favor of gun laws unless they stick it to the man. You're stunningly transparent and it would simpler if you just admitted you don't like police.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Wayne's a cop?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 canno