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.

(The Raw Story)   'Guns & Ammo' magazine publishes a thoughtful, well-researched editorial in favor of firearms safety legislation. Which is, of course, an unjustified assault on OUR FREEDOMS and WILL NOT BE TOLERATED   (rawstory.com) divider line 335
    More: Obvious, Guns & Ammo, legislation, firearms, Language interpretation, editorials, safety  
•       •       •

2464 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2013 at 10:43 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



335 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-07 09:13:16 AM
So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?
 
2013-11-07 09:16:36 AM

dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?


Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.
 
2013-11-07 09:22:10 AM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway?  Why would they really need a cut & dry list?  There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.
 
2013-11-07 09:23:16 AM

dletter: RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway?  Why would they really need a cut & dry list?  There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.


I'm not arguing with you, I'm stating the arguments I've actually heard about this shiat.
 
2013-11-07 09:24:01 AM

dletter: There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia


The NRA grassroots base is much scarier than any gun you will ever see.
 
2013-11-07 09:24:27 AM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


What about all those that would be trained to use a gun but not actually own one?

Having a driver license does not mean you own a car.
 
2013-11-07 09:24:34 AM

dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?


Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the  majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.
 
2013-11-07 09:24:35 AM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


i42.tinypic.com

"They took our jerbs GUNS!!"
 
2013-11-07 09:26:55 AM
While he supported the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, Metcalf wrote, he also supported the right for "adequate training" to be required for someone to do so

Training?  This is an outrage!  This is heresy!  All American children are born with the innate ability to handle weapons.  Except of course knowing to check if they're loaded when they pick them up.  Or to never point them at anyone.  Or to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.  But these are small things.
 
2013-11-07 09:28:06 AM

hinten: Having a driver license does not mean you own a car.


But not having a driver's license doesn't mean you don't own a car.  Critical difference.
 
2013-11-07 09:30:13 AM

new_york_monty: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the  majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.


I am 100% for this idea.

Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.
 
2013-11-07 09:31:24 AM
Metcalf's take was quickly ripped on the magazine's Facebook page; with several readers saying on Wednesday they would abandon Guns & Ammo.  "Off the topic but just want to know why your editor would support gun control?" one commenter wrote. "This is a gun magazine correct? I don't think we will be reading your magazine anymore."

See? They're reasonable people, just like everyone else.  They're willing to listen politely to opposing opinions.  And then blow the opposing opinion's head off.
 
2013-11-07 09:33:12 AM
There are a couple of things you have to know about gun owners to understand this:

1. It's not a monolithic block.  There are people who truly believe it is a right that attaches to being a citizen, who look to the historical model of an armed citizenry, and there are those who look at it strictly from a sporting (often hunting) perspective.

The people who believe it is a right derisively call the people who only care about it when it comes to "hunting guns" Fudds, after Elmer Fudd.

2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors.  Here are some examples:

a.  Smith and Wesson.  Because it signed an agreement with the Clinton administration, the gun rights people pretty much instantly and spontaneously called for a boycott of the products.  Remember, S&W didn't make hunting and sporting guns, they made handguns, mostly for self-defense purposes.  So they were pissing off their own customers, because people who own guns for self-defense are much more likely to support gun rights than someone who owns guns primarily to hunt deer or ducks.

b. Jim Zumbo.  Well known gun writer, and primarily a "Fudd", he came out against AR-15's, and paid a very heavy price for it.  Because of threatened boycotts, companies such as Remington, Mossy Oak, Gerber Knives, and the media company Outdoor Life all dropped him.

c.  The Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show.  This *WAS* the biggest hunting/fishing/camping/hiking show in the northeast, held every year.  Right after Sandy Hook, the organizers said "No 'Modern Sporting Rifles'", meaning no AR-15's.  People started saying they were going to boycott the show, and any company that dared to show up.  Companies, even those not related to guns at all pulled out.   The show had to be cancelled.

You don't fark with gun owners like that if your business caters to those very same gun owners.  The Fudds are too few in number, and dying out, to carry you forward.
 
2013-11-07 09:36:20 AM
The same sh*t happens whenever Car and Driver says anything nice about electric cars or greenhouse gas emissions.

Although Car and Driver has been doing so for a while, while this is a novel first for G&A.

dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?


I hear a lot of the arguments against it because I'm former military and have a LOT of friends that are firearms enthusiasts.  They see it as a burden on themselves (the law-abiding) that doesn't affect criminals nor criminal behavior.  The counter-argument is that, if we actually controlled the flow of guns person-to-person in the country, that the "good guys" would eventually stem the flow of guns to the "bad guys" through long-chain, person-to-person transfers.  That is the most common way that criminals get armed.  The "good guys" wouldn't want to have to answer for why Jimmy the Felon had the weapon that they bought three years ago.

But it isn't a quick fix, and with patchwork laws there are workarounds.  See: armed gangs in DC and NYC.
 
2013-11-07 09:40:02 AM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


I don't know I've ever understood this argument. Where I live you are required to register your firearm with the town. It's not like they don't have a f*cking list anyway.

Of course even with a list, you can't assume someone you want to take down by force doesn't have an illegal firearm or one they got from a friend or cousin. Especially anyone who (presumably) broke the law and would be subject to some kind of forced entry into their house.
 
2013-11-07 09:40:18 AM

dletter: RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway?  Why would they really need a cut & dry list?  There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.


Because they can't possibly go house to house just seizing guns, and general warrants are illegal and the kind of "shoot the bastards" type of warning sign.  No legitimate entity under the US Constitution can just search a whole area under a general warrant.  Ever.

But if you have a central list of all gun owners, and the types of guns they own, you now have "probable cause" to support a search warrant if a certain type or caliber of gun is banned.  Plus, they don't have to expend the actual effort to go from house to house.  They already know where they are.

So yes, a central registry, especially a computerized one, would make it much, much more efficient to do that sort of thing, and easier to do under existing US laws relating to search and seizures and the requirement for a particularized warrant supported by probable cause.

*THAT* is why there is opposition to that sort of thing.
 
2013-11-07 09:56:18 AM

factoryconnection: I hear a lot of the arguments against it because I'm former military and have a LOT of friends that are firearms enthusiasts.  They see it as a burden on themselves (the law-abiding) that doesn't affect criminals nor criminal behavior.  The counter-argument is that, if we actually controlled the flow of guns person-to-person in the country, that the "good guys" would eventually stem the flow of guns to the "bad guys" through long-chain, person-to-person transfers.  That is the most common way that criminals get armed.  The "good guys" wouldn't want to have to answer for why Jimmy the Felon had the weapon that they bought three years ago.


1.  The "time to crime" for guns actually averages over 10 years, according to the ATF.

2. The real reason that there is massive opposition to that sort of control over guns is that it supplies the government with probable cause if they ever decide that any particular model, type, or caliber of gun should now be banned.

That's the real problem.  A comprehensive registry of guns and gun owners is relatively benign in a democracy, right up until the time that there is some event that causes people to look to banning a certain type of gun.  Then it becomes an effective method to collect all of them.  That is what happened in the UK in the late 1990s:  All guns had to be registered there, and handguns especially were subject to relatively strict controls.  But after the mass shooting in Dunblane, they banned all modern handguns, and they had the means to effectively collect them all from the legal owners.

If there is no central registry, though, you can't effectively ban them.  You can't collect them because you don't know who has them.  You can talk to the original purchasers, but they may have subsequently sold them, or (my personal favorite), "it fell out of the canoe into the lake when we capsized it while I was fishing about 5 years ago".

Another thing that isn't really talked about is that the extra hassle and cost that goes with registration of guns often prevents people who *WOULD* legally own guns, but don't have the time or money to do so, or just don't want to put in the money and effort for something they aren't sure they are going to like.  This limits the number of people who legally own guns, and in fact by gradually increasing the cost and requirements, you can make something go from a majority, or a very sizable minority, into a very small minority.  That lowers the eventual political cost of a ban.
 
2013-11-07 09:59:29 AM

Marcus Aurelius: While he supported the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, Metcalf wrote, he also supported the right for "adequate training" to be required for someone to do so

Training?  This is an outrage!  This is heresy!  All American children are born with the innate ability to handle weapons.  Except of course knowing to check if they're loaded when they pick them up.  Or to never point them at anyone.  Or to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.  But these are small things.


What if that training costs $500 and is only available once a month during regular business hours?  You know, so that brown people won't own guns.
 
2013-11-07 09:59:57 AM

dittybopper: 2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors.  Here are some examples:


This is the hardline base on the right that is full of tea partiers. They don't want compromise, they want what they want the exact way they want it, and simply getting what they want isn't enough, they want everyone else to fall in line with their beliefs as well. These are the same people that are constantly suspect of people in their political party of being RINOs.
 
2013-11-07 10:15:29 AM
A comparison between vehicle fatalities in the US (which does have regulation) vs gun fatalities (regulations vary) by Bloomberg.com produces the following SWAG that gun fatalities will eventually top vehicle fatalities:
"While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend."
 
2013-11-07 10:18:39 AM

dittybopper: Marcus Aurelius: While he supported the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, Metcalf wrote, he also supported the right for "adequate training" to be required for someone to do so

Training?  This is an outrage!  This is heresy!  All American children are born with the innate ability to handle weapons.  Except of course knowing to check if they're loaded when they pick them up.  Or to never point them at anyone.  Or to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.  But these are small things.

What if that training costs $500 and is only available once a month during regular business hours?  You know, so that brown people won't own guns.


I think I paid about $12 for my gun safety course back in 1972, but point taken.
 
2013-11-07 10:22:29 AM

MayoSlather: dittybopper: 2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors.  Here are some examples:

This is the hardline base on the right that is full of tea partiers. They don't want compromise, they want what they want the exact way they want it, and simply getting what they want isn't enough, they want everyone else to fall in line with their beliefs as well. These are the same people that are constantly suspect of people in their political party of being RINOs.


Nope.

These people existed long before the TEA party was a gleam in conservative eyes, and they aren't strictly conservatives, either:  There are plenty of liberals in there also.  In fact, the "own guns because it's an individual right" crowd tends to be younger, browner, and more female compared to the elder-white-male dominated "own guns because plaid wool and deer hunting" Fudds.

It used to be that the Fudds dominated gun ownership.  Now, they don't:

www.people-press.org

Look at the Dem/Lean Dem numbers:  The biggest reason among them (and most other populations) for owing a gun has flipped from Hunting to Protection.

The Fudds are dying out, and their attitude of "well, why do you need X rounds to hunt a deer" is dying with them.

I'm a hunter myself, and I actually only use a single-shot muzzleloader when I hunt*, but I'm not a Fudd, despite only owning "Fudd guns".  I recognize that we must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hand separately.

*And not a pussy modern inline gun either:  I use a traditional style flintlock.
 
2013-11-07 10:25:54 AM

Marcus Aurelius: dittybopper: Marcus Aurelius: While he supported the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, Metcalf wrote, he also supported the right for "adequate training" to be required for someone to do so

Training?  This is an outrage!  This is heresy!  All American children are born with the innate ability to handle weapons.  Except of course knowing to check if they're loaded when they pick them up.  Or to never point them at anyone.  Or to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.  But these are small things.

What if that training costs $500 and is only available once a month during regular business hours?  You know, so that brown people won't own guns.

I think I paid about $12 for my gun safety course back in 1972, but point taken.


That's how they get stuff like that approved.  Make it easy, so it's not much of a burden.  Then, they can make it increasingly harder and more expensive.  That's what they did in NYC, and in the UK.
 
2013-11-07 10:27:19 AM

simplicimus: A comparison between vehicle fatalities in the US (which does have regulation) vs gun fatalities (regulations vary) by Bloomberg.com produces the following SWAG that gun fatalities will eventually top vehicle fatalities:
"While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend."


Except that they won't:  The reason driving deaths were trending down like that was the economic crash in 2007/2008.  Fewer people working and taking vacations means fewer people on the road, which means fewer accidents.
 
2013-11-07 10:32:38 AM

dittybopper: Except that they won't: The reason driving deaths were trending down like that was the economic crash in 2007/2008. Fewer people working and taking vacations means fewer people on the road, which means fewer accidents.


Driving death rates have been falling consistently because of safety regulations over the years.  Driving in the 60s was perilously dangerous and the cars themselves made it much more so.  Cars nowadays are vastly safer and thus people survive even unhurt accidents that would have killed them.  I wonder what drove the safety culture?

Of course, violent crime has dropped over the past 20 years and with it gun murders which is more and more thought to be tied to the rise and fall of environmental lead exposure to children from the 50s through the late 70s.  Fewer people with prefrontal cortex developmental problems, fewer people going apesh*t crazy and killing people.
 
2013-11-07 10:33:48 AM

dittybopper: simplicimus: A comparison between vehicle fatalities in the US (which does have regulation) vs gun fatalities (regulations vary) by Bloomberg.com produces the following SWAG that gun fatalities will eventually top vehicle fatalities:
"While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend."

Except that they won't:  The reason driving deaths were trending down like that was the economic crash in 2007/2008.  Fewer people working and taking vacations means fewer people on the road, which means fewer accidents.


And I should point out that about 2/3 of gun fatalities were suicides.
 
2013-11-07 10:35:55 AM
Gawker has a sampling of some of the responses Guns & Ammo received.

This is my favorite:
Anyone who says "I believe in the Second Amendment but-" does not believe in the Second Amendment. They are not friends, they are not frenemies, they are enemies of The People of the Gun.
 
2013-11-07 10:37:16 AM

factoryconnection: Fewer people with prefrontal cortex developmental problems, fewer people going apesh*t crazy and killing people.


cdn.bernardgoldberg.com
Take a trip to Chicago or Detroit and see if your strawman makes it out alive.  You know, for research.
 
2013-11-07 10:37:44 AM
The kicker is that once the conservatives started bellyaching, Guns & Ammo immediately fired Metcalf and begged for forgiveness.
 
2013-11-07 10:43:42 AM

dittybopper: MayoSlather: dittybopper: 2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors.  Here are some examples:

This is the hardline base on the right that is full of tea partiers. They don't want compromise, they want what they want the exact way they want it, and simply getting what they want isn't enough, they want everyone else to fall in line with their beliefs as well. These are the same people that are constantly suspect of people in their political party of being RINOs.

Nope.

These people existed long before the TEA party was a gleam in conservative eyes, and they aren't strictly conservatives, either:  There are plenty of liberals in there also.  In fact, the "own guns because it's an individual right" crowd tends to be younger, browner, and more female compared to the elder-white-male dominated "own guns because plaid wool and deer hunting" Fudds.

It used to be that the Fudds dominated gun ownership.  Now, they don't:

[www.people-press.org image 411x341]

Look at the Dem/Lean Dem numbers:  The biggest reason among them (and most other populations) for owing a gun has flipped from Hunting to Protection.

The Fudds are dying out, and their attitude of "well, why do you need X rounds to hunt a deer" is dying with them.

I'm a hunter myself, and I actually only use a single-shot muzzleloader when I hunt*, but I'm not a Fudd, despite only owning "Fudd guns".  I recognize that we must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hand separately.

*And not a pussy modern inline gun either:  I use a traditional style flintlock.



I wasn't addressing gun owners as a whole, just the sect of hardliners that don't want any regulation and regularly go on the offensive against anyone who is ostensibly not as pure of heart as they are.
 
2013-11-07 10:44:18 AM
dittybopper:

*And not a pussy modern inline gun either:  I use a traditional style flintlock.

Is it a pussy rifled barrel or a smooth bore?  Do you use pussy swaged or molded rounds?

/Pussy natural (modern) lube or paraffin-tallow?
//Yes, I said it.
 
2013-11-07 10:47:11 AM
More like Libs & Homo, right guys? Guys?

/the nuts will be brought to heel
 
2013-11-07 10:48:50 AM

dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?



Some guys 200 years ago wanted private militias to police slave rebellions so firearm safety is hitler.
 
2013-11-07 10:50:53 AM

Elegy: Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.


Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.
 
2013-11-07 10:51:11 AM
There's only one kind of magazine a red-white-and-blue gun owner needs.
 
2013-11-07 10:52:23 AM

dittybopper: you now have "probable cause"


no, you don't

dittybopper: So yes, a central registry, especially a computerized one, would make it much, much more efficient to do that sort of thing


And still wouldn't make it farking plausible.

You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns, while ignoring everything from the acceptance of guns on both sides of the aisle including among those who have no desire to own guns, the utter impracticality of a gun ban making the legislation impossible even if people tried to comply with it, the requirement of a farking constitutional amendment to allow such a thing to happen, and the groundswell of resistance that would occur between gun owners and the 'grabbers'.

Your boohoo about a boogeyman does more to undermine the pro-gun position than anything else on the farking planet. Grow up, take the night light out, and act like a farking adult.
 
2013-11-07 10:53:26 AM

dletter: RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway?  Why would they really need a cut & dry list?  There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.


You need to rewatch Red Dawn.
 
2013-11-07 10:53:59 AM

skozlaw: Elegy: Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.


It's also nice that people from a political camp that endlessly sucks money out of school budgets will somehow agree to funding this.

It's the same with their bullshiat smoke screen about wanting better mental health services. Ask them how they want to pay for it.
 
2013-11-07 10:55:06 AM
yes, firearms safety training requirements are exactly like a poll tax

jesus unbelievable fark
 
2013-11-07 10:56:49 AM

Jackson Herring: yes, firearms safety training requirements are exactly like a poll tax

jesus unbelievable fark


Having to buy a gun at all is an affront to the Constitution. They should be given out for free to everyone.
 
2013-11-07 10:57:56 AM

Jackson Herring: yes, firearms safety training requirements are exactly like a poll tax

jesus unbelievable fark


They really fervently believe that.
 
2013-11-07 10:58:04 AM

sprawl15: You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns


Their entire argument relies on paranoia.
 
2013-11-07 10:58:11 AM
I don't see how these clowns can say there are no limits on the Second Amendment when there are clearly limits on the First.
 
2013-11-07 10:58:37 AM

HotWingConspiracy: They really fervently believe that.


well yes someone literally just posted that viewpoint in this thread
 
2013-11-07 10:58:52 AM

new_york_monty: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the  majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.


That would mean that their kids are going to government controlled brainwashing centers, aka public schools They bring their kids to god fearing private schools that take vouchers, and they can teach their kids how to shoot guns at brown folk all by themselves.

/think I got it right
 
2013-11-07 10:59:14 AM
Well regulated.
 
2013-11-07 11:00:23 AM
Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....
 
2013-11-07 11:00:27 AM

busy chillin': Well regulated.


Please don't, just please, please don't.  Every farking time, someone has to bring that up.  Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on?  We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.
 
2013-11-07 11:00:33 AM
Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.
 
2013-11-07 11:00:44 AM

HotWingConspiracy: It's the same with their bullshiat smoke screen about wanting better mental health services. Ask them how they want to pay for it.


Oh, hell, they don't even need THAT excuse to do a 180. Remember a few months back when a state legislature did actually try to pass a law that stated that if you were diagnosed as potentially dangerous that you would be barred from passing a gun check and they immediately threw a fit that it was a violation of the person's privacy and cut it down?

It's almost like all their claims about what sort of violence reduction measures they'd actually support are just smokescreens and the only actual outcome they'll accept is "nothing because my personal hobbies are more important than anybody else's life no matter how minor the changes are or how major the potential benefits"...

Nah... that couldn't possibly be it. They keep reassuring me they're so reasonable! Like dittybopper there! He's always totally reasonable just like he says!
 
2013-11-07 11:01:05 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Their entire argument relies on paranoia.


Paranoia keeps the sheep and LIVs in line. Makes them bleat when the masters want them to.
 
2013-11-07 11:01:40 AM

RexTalionis: The kicker is that once the conservatives started bellyaching, Guns & Ammo immediately fired Metcalf and begged for forgiveness.


That's disappointing.
One of their guys writes a completely reasonable piece advocating gun safety and he gets canned.
From their page:
In publishing Metcalf's column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine - nor, most important, "Guns & Ammo"'s. It is very clear to me that they don't reflect the views of our readership either.

Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with "Guns & Ammo" has officially ended.


So the head editor KNEW what the story was about. He approved the damn thing even though he doesn't agree with it. And then fires the guy who wrote the article? Talk about a a classless coward.
 
2013-11-07 11:01:41 AM
dittybopper:

That's how they get stuff like that approved.  Make it easy, so it's not much of a burden.  Then, they can make it increasingly harder and more expensive.  That's what they did in NYC, and in the UK.

Funny, this is the exact same tactic red states are using against abortion.
 
2013-11-07 11:02:47 AM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


i4.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-07 11:03:33 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.


Now now.... among OECD countries Mexico is still worse for gun deaths. Say what you will about gun owners in this country, but be sure to remember that they're slightly less violent than bloodthirsty drug cartels embroiled in open war with one another and the military...
 
2013-11-07 11:03:58 AM

dittybopper: There are a couple of things you have to know about gun owners to understand this:

1. It's not a monolithic block.  There are people who truly believe it is a right that attaches to being a citizen, who look to the historical model of an armed citizenry, and there are those who look at it strictly from a sporting (often hunting) perspective.

The people who believe it is a right derisively call the people who only care about it when it comes to "hunting guns" Fudds, after Elmer Fudd.

2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors.  Here are some examples:

a.  Smith and Wesson.  Because it signed an agreement with the Clinton administration, the gun rights people pretty much instantly and spontaneously called for a boycott of the products.  Remember, S&W didn't make hunting and sporting guns, they made handguns, mostly for self-defense purposes.  So they were pissing off their own customers, because people who own guns for self-defense are much more likely to support gun rights than someone who owns guns primarily to hunt deer or ducks.

b. Jim Zumbo.  Well known gun writer, and primarily a "Fudd", he came out against AR-15's, and paid a very heavy price for it.  Because of threatened boycotts, companies such as Remington, Mossy Oak, Gerber Knives, and the media company Outdoor Life all dropped him.

c.  The Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show.  This *WAS* the biggest hunting/fishing/camping/hiking show in the northeast, held every year.  Right after Sandy Hook, the organizers said "No 'Modern Sporting Rifles'", meaning no AR-15's.  People started saying they were going to boycott the show, and any company that dared to show up.  Companies, even those not related to guns at all pulled out.   The show had to be cancelled.

You don't fark with gun owners like that if your business caters to those very same gun owners.   The Fudds are too few in number, and dying out, to carry you forward.


So, a majority of gun owners are paranoid and vindictive. got it.

RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP YEEEEHAAAAWWW!!!!
 
2013-11-07 11:04:00 AM
Vacation Bible School:

Dude(ette), I know it's not related to the thread, but I love that handle.
 
2013-11-07 11:04:46 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Take a trip to Chicago or Detroit and see if your strawman makes it out alive. You know, for research.


To which strawman are you referring?  Exposing children to lead diminishes the development of the prefrontal cortex, the center of the brain that tempers the "go crazy" in people normally.

skozlaw: Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".


We teach kids basketball, soccer, dodgeball, kickball, arts and crafts and all sorts of other "hobbies."  There is nothing inherently wrong, dangerous, nor anti-educational to include firearms instruction in schools.  People are injured and killed because they don't know sh*t about firearms and, especially in the case of kids, pick them up and play with them.  Learning how to use a firearm doesn't make you violent nor predispose you to gun crime... I should know I taught hundreds of kids firearms safety and marksmanship, spent years in the military and I don't even own any firearms.

There are firearms in a very large portion of US households.  A few gym classes per year to reinforce the big three and maybe murder some innocent paper doesn't sound too horrible to me.

Trail of Dead: You need to rewatch Red Dawn.


I used to think that was a random 80s movie until I learned how many people watch it in awe to this day.  Or at least it seems that way on the 'tubes.
 
2013-11-07 11:04:59 AM

cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....


death machines are the same as private medical acts and the right to peacefully elect and choose our representatives and leaders

Ok next false equivalency.
 
2013-11-07 11:06:02 AM
Man, why does it feel like some of the Night Vale hypothetical NRA slogans are starting to become plausible?
 
2013-11-07 11:06:42 AM
All things can be and are regulated, including guns.  Anyone who wants a society where everyone, and I mean everyone can get firearms without any limitation at all is deeply suicidal.

Louisiana passed a state constitutional amendment making gun ownership a fundamental right of all people.  Now the felons are suing the state for full access to guns.

There is an insanity about this current generation of gun people which leads to irrational results.  Their inability to consider the consequences of their actions leads to death.  And literally, it leads to death.
 
2013-11-07 11:07:46 AM
That's why they're called gun nuts.
 
2013-11-07 11:08:03 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns

Their entire argument relies on paranoia.


Paranoia:  because if you can't find all of your enemies, why not create a few new ones?
 
2013-11-07 11:09:15 AM

Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Well regulated.

Please don't, just please, please don't.  Every farking time, someone has to bring that up.  Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on?  We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.


What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.
 
2013-11-07 11:10:34 AM
"OK, so that's $1600 for the Bushmaster PX45, $875 for 5 jumbo-sized boxes of ammunition, $500 for the holographic sights, $50 each for the two extended quick-change mag, $400 for the reinforced adjustable stock, $30 for the shoulder sling, $300 for the hardsided, cloth-lined case, $100 for the cleaning kit, $200 for the polymer handguard, $50 for the custom over-sized rubber grip, $35 for the flashlight mount kit, $100 for the quick-collapsible tripod, and....the Rat-L-Trap....that comes to....$4,364.76 with tax."

"Excellent, please put it on my Discover Card!"

"Oh, and there's also a $50 training course fee if you have not already taken it."

"TYRANNY!"
 
2013-11-07 11:11:17 AM

busy chillin': What are the replies to that statement?


I think I'm the only person who points out that the 9th makes any debate about the 2nd's exact meaning irrelevant.
 
2013-11-07 11:11:32 AM
The NRA is a lobbying group for the gun manufacturing industry. While what they  should be doing is encouraging safe and responsible gun ownership, they've realized over the last few decades that if they instead concentrate their efforts into "ZOMG Big Gumbint iz coming for yur gunz!", it leads to their funders (gun makers) making more money.
 
2013-11-07 11:11:34 AM
Wild, knee-jerk, reactionary commentary on Facebook about a political wedge issue that many people get the entirety of their "knowledge" about through forwarded emails and misleading internet infographics? Say it ain't so! Next they'll be saying that the president was born in Kenya and is a Marxist who is determined to destroy this country, or that the government is putting chemicals in jet exhaust to exert mind control over the population, or that Obama is controlling the weather with HAARP, or that natural disasters are God's wrath over gay marriage.

This just in: There are some really, REALLY stupid, loud and ignorant people out there. They like to bleat their stupid, loud and ignorant opinions on the internet. Film at 11.
 
2013-11-07 11:12:48 AM

factoryconnection: We teach kids basketball, soccer, dodgeball, kickball, arts and crafts and all sorts of other "hobbies."


No, we don't. There is no "basketball" class as part of any school's curriculum anywhere in this country. If you want to try and convince people that gun safety should be part of a class aimed at teaching good physical activity habits along side those things be my guest, but don't make stupid shiat up in the interim.

factoryconnection: There is nothing inherently wrong


Yes, there is, it's a goddamn hobby and hobbies aren't curricular. There is no debate about this. No hobby has been, is or should be given status alongside core curriculum, your hobby, no matter what it is, is not an exception.

factoryconnection: A few gym classes per year to reinforce the big three and maybe murder some innocent paper doesn't sound too horrible to me.


So offer it as part of health, though I'd be surprised if a number of schools don't already.

Or, you know... change the law so that idiots who leave their guns laying around in a living room full of children can't own guns anymore.

But no... no... can't do that.. much better to put the responsibility on third graders than the adults... or.. you know.. I don't... do both... nah... that makes waaaay too much sense and we all know that means its dead in the water from the gun "advocates" side.
 
2013-11-07 11:12:52 AM

skozlaw: Elegy: Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.


Driving is a hobby to some.. We have to license that hobby. You have to pass a test to be able to drive.  You have to carry insurance incase you harm your self or others.
 
2013-11-07 11:13:15 AM
It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government.  As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.
 
2013-11-07 11:14:53 AM
I am completely fine with requiring proficiency training/testing for anyone who wants to carry/utilise a firearm off their own property.
 
2013-11-07 11:16:20 AM

busy chillin': Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Well regulated.

Please don't, just please, please don't.  Every farking time, someone has to bring that up.  Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on?  We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.

What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.


The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century.  Then it meant "well stocked".  So a well regulated militia is actually a well stocked militia.  Now, I don't personally believe that we ought to enforce the 18th century definition of 'well regulated' unless we also enforce the 18th century definition of 'arms', by which of course I mean muskets.  What I'm saying is, for all the ways you can attack the second amendment and those who vociferously support it, that is probably not the angle you want to use.
 
2013-11-07 11:16:28 AM

dittybopper: There are a couple of things you have to know about gun owners to understand this:

1. It's not a monolithic block.  There are people who truly believe it is a right that attaches to being a citizen, who look to the historical model of an armed citizenry, and there are those who look at it strictly from a sporting (often hunting) perspective.

The people who believe it is a right derisively call the people who only care about it when it comes to "hunting guns" Fudds, after Elmer Fudd.

2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors.  Here are some examples:

a.  Smith and Wesson.  Because it signed an agreement with the Clinton administration, the gun rights people pretty much instantly and spontaneously called for a boycott of the products.  Remember, S&W didn't make hunting and sporting guns, they made handguns, mostly for self-defense purposes.  So they were pissing off their own customers, because people who own guns for self-defense are much more likely to support gun rights than someone who owns guns primarily to hunt deer or ducks.

b. Jim Zumbo.  Well known gun writer, and primarily a "Fudd", he came out against AR-15's, and paid a very heavy price for it.  Because of threatened boycotts, companies such as Remington, Mossy Oak, Gerber Knives, and the media company Outdoor Life all dropped him.

c.  The Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show.  This *WAS* the biggest hunting/fishing/camping/hiking show in the northeast, held every year.  Right after Sandy Hook, the organizers said "No 'Modern Sporting Rifles'", meaning no AR-15's.  People started saying they were going to boycott the show, and any company that dared to show up.  Companies, even those not related to guns at all pulled out.   The show had to be cancelled.


d. Recoil Magazine. While reviewing a new, full-auto capable something-or-other awhile back, the then-editor dared to utter "No one needs this gun" somewhere in the article. That was it. What came next was truly horrifying. The nuts came out in force, threatening to boycott not only the magazine but their advertisers as well. At my last stunned count, some 40-50% of advertisers had pulled out. The offending editor was subsequently canned, and waves of apologies followed.
 
2013-11-07 11:16:34 AM

Facetious_Speciest: I am completely fine with requiring proficiency training/testing for anyone who wants to carry/utilise a firearm off their own property.


And a guarantee that those who have a gun on their own property either are proficiently tested/trained or only carry blunderbusses that go no further than the edge of their property?  I'm down with that.
 
2013-11-07 11:17:01 AM
I want the job of prying guns from the cold, dead hands of formerly lawful gun owners.

Obama has let me down.
 
2013-11-07 11:18:11 AM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


The paranoia of the hard core gun owners is truly something to see
 
2013-11-07 11:18:18 AM

Devo: skozlaw: Elegy: Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.

Driving is a hobby to some.. We have to license that hobby. You have to pass a test to be able to drive.  You have to carry insurance incase you harm your self or others.


And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths. Just because you pass a drivers test doesn't mean you will drive safely. And the same would apply to gun training.
 
2013-11-07 11:18:59 AM

pueblonative: cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....

death machines are the same as private medical acts and the right to peacefully elect and choose our representatives and leaders

Ok next false equivalency.


Funny you would choose the phrase "death machines" to defend abortion clinics.
 
2013-11-07 11:19:18 AM
List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America (LOPCATGOPATA for short):Liberals Link
Democrats Link
Socialists Link
Community Organizers Link
Geologists Link
Biologists Link
Meteorologists Link
Climatologists Link
Atheists Link
Muslims Link
Jews Link
Satan Link
ABC Link
NBC Link
CNN Link
CBS Link
PBS Link
All of cable news except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions Link
Colleges
Teachers (including kindergarten teachers) Link
Professors
ACORN Link
Planned Parenthood Link
National Endowment for the Arts Link
Fashion Industry Link
Gays
Judges Link
NPR Link
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires Link
The Honolulu Advertiser Link
The Star Bulletin Link
Teletubbies Link
Sponge Bob and Patrick Link
Nobel Prize Committee Link
US Census Bureau Link
NOAA Link
Sesame Street Link
Comic Books Link
Little Green Footballs Link
Video Games Link
The Bible Link
CBO Link
Bruce Springsteen Link
Pennies Link
The Theory of Relativity Link
Comedy Central Link
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is Link
Small Business Owners Link
Math Link
CPAC Link
Navy SEALs Link
The Economist
The Muppets Link
Iowa Republicans
Low-Flow Toilets Link
Breast Cancer Screenings Link
Chrysler Link
Clint Eastwood. Link
Robert Deniro Link
Tom Hanks Link
Glenn Frey Link
Norman Rockwell Link
James Cameron Link
Dr. Seus
Nuns Link
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Link
Jonathan Krohn at age 17 Link
Fact Checkers Link
Australia Link
Mitt Romney
Rasmussen
Fox News
Lockheed Martin Link
Bureau of Labor Statistics Link
Paul Ryan Link
Debate moderators Link
Ben Stein Link
Soup kitchens Link
Chris Christie Link
Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight.com) Link
Fox Polling
US Postal Service
Associated Press
Hurricanes Link
Susan Collins Link
Lisa Murkowski Link
Dean Heller Link
Mark Kirk Link
Lindsey Graham Link
Governor Bobby Jindal Link
General Petreaus Link
Saxby Chambliss Link
God Link
Girl Scouts Link
Boston Tea Party Link
Vegetables Link
American Indians Link
Stephen King, Tom Coburn, Jeff Flake, Alan Simpson, John McCain Link
John Boehner Link
Rainbows Link
SimCity Link
Bono Link
Bono Impersonators Link
Brookings Institution Link
Tax Policy Centre Link
Dogs Link
Pollsters Link
Matt Drudge Link
Mitch McConnel Link
Juan Williams Link
Ted Cruz Link
Twitter Link
Anne Coulter Link
Google Cache Link
Guns & Ammo Magazine Link
 
2013-11-07 11:19:54 AM

simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.


one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves
 
2013-11-07 11:20:17 AM

pueblonative: cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....

death machines are the same as private medical acts and the right to peacefully elect and choose our representatives and leaders

Ok next false equivalency.


Your responding to a hit and run troll there
 
2013-11-07 11:21:21 AM

cchris_39: pueblonative: cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....

death machines are the same as private medical acts and the right to peacefully elect and choose our representatives and leaders

Ok next false equivalency.

Funny you would choose the phrase "death machines" to defend abortion clinics.


Since when did people use guns in medical procedures?  Oh, there was this guy. . .


upload.wikimedia.org

Extra credit, what medical procedure did Dr. Roland perform?  Go on, guess. . .
 
2013-11-07 11:21:47 AM
pueblonative

And a guarantee that those who have a gun on their own property either are proficiently tested/trained or only carry blunderbusses that go no further than the edge of their property?

No. I'm suggesting we treat firearms more like vehicles. There are obvious differences, but I think it's a decent place to start. If you want to use one around the general public, you should be proficient. If you want to drive your unlicensed Herkimer battle-jitney around your back forty, knock yourself out as long as you're not endangering your neighbors.
 
2013-11-07 11:22:12 AM

Peter von Nostrand: pueblonative: cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....

death machines are the same as private medical acts and the right to peacefully elect and choose our representatives and leaders

Ok next false equivalency.

Your responding to a hit and run troll there


but enough about his drinking and driving habits...
 
2013-11-07 11:23:17 AM

sprawl15: simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.

one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves


Then one might think drivers would be better at driving.
 
2013-11-07 11:23:36 AM

Facetious_Speciest: pueblonative

And a guarantee that those who have a gun on their own property either are proficiently tested/trained or only carry blunderbusses that go no further than the edge of their property?

No. I'm suggesting we treat firearms more like vehicles. There are obvious differences, but I think it's a decent place to start. If you want to use one around the general public, you should be proficient. If you want to drive your unlicensed Herkimer battle-jitney around your back forty, knock yourself out as long as you're not endangering your neighbors.


In other words, legal to the end of your property without a license.  I don't know of many vehicles that have projectiles that fly off multiple of times of the length of the vehicle as part of the standard package.
 
2013-11-07 11:25:40 AM

pueblonative: Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns

Their entire argument relies on paranoia.

Paranoia:  because if you can't find all of your any enemies, why not create a few new ones?


FTFY.
 
2013-11-07 11:25:41 AM
Two points: As a politically liberal gun owner, the comments on articles like that make me hate many other gun owners.
Secondly, I was an Infantryman in the Army, do non-gun owners believe that combat arms veterans such as myself should be exempt from compulsory firearms training laws? As I've already been trained by the government in proper gun safety.
Just curious as to what others think about that.
 
2013-11-07 11:25:50 AM
pueblonative

I don't know of many vehicles that have projectiles that fly off multiple of times of the length of the vehicle as part of the standard package.

Random thought: don't shoot up your own property in ways that endanger others. That's already the way it is.
 
2013-11-07 11:26:09 AM

skozlaw: Nah... that couldn't possibly be it. They keep reassuring me they're so reasonable! Like dittybopper there! He's always totally reasonable just like he says!



Did anyone ever think these people were reasonable?  By and large these are the same people who flipped shiat in the 90s when the government started mandating all guns be sold with trigger locks.  The friggin things cost under $5 and didn't alter the use or construction of the weapons in any way.
 
2013-11-07 11:26:10 AM

simplicimus: sprawl15: simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.

one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves

Then one might think drivers would be better at driving.


is this where i need to call an adult because you're trying to waggle your statisticals around in public
 
2013-11-07 11:26:11 AM

sprawl15: simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.

one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves


[Total participants in automobile-related transportation] and [total time spent engaged in activity throughout lifetime] and [total deaths related to automobiles] compared to [total participants in fire-arm usage and ownership] and [total amount of time spent using firearm] and [deaths as a result of firearm]

That would be the end-all be-all statistic for that comparison.
 
2013-11-07 11:26:53 AM

Ashyukun: pueblonative: Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns

Their entire argument relies on paranoia.

Paranoia:  because if you can't find all of your any enemies, why not create a few new ones?

FTFY.


+1 sir.
 
2013-11-07 11:28:29 AM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
 
2013-11-07 11:28:42 AM

simplicimus: sprawl15: simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.

one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves

Then one might think drivers would be better at driving.


Are you really suggesting that requiring driving licenses is ok but gun training is tyranny?
 
2013-11-07 11:29:23 AM

Facetious_Speciest: pueblonative

I don't know of many vehicles that have projectiles that fly off multiple of times of the length of the vehicle as part of the standard package.

Random thought: don't shoot up your own property in ways that endanger others. That's already the way it is.


Oh I won't shoot up my own property. . . .

now, if I just so happen to be near the edge of my property and see a couple of elk I'd like to plug for SKGs, or if I drink a little too much Kentucky Bourbon and mistake that owl on my neighbor's roof for an alien, well, I'm still on my property but I ain't shooting it up, now, am I?
 
2013-11-07 11:29:26 AM
Quick, reasonable question. Were the complaints well reasoned, and en masse? Did their FB page lose a million likes that day? Did their subscribership drop by a notable amount?

If so, that's kinda scary, actually. If not, <OMG Who the hell cares?.jpg>
 
2013-11-07 11:30:35 AM

Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Well regulated.

Please don't, just please, please don't.  Every farking time, someone has to bring that up.  Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on?  We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.

What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.

The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century.  Then it meant "well stocked".  So a well regulated militia is actually a well stocked militia.  Now, I don't personally believe that we ought to enforce the 18th century definition of 'well regulated' unless we also enforce the 18th century definition of 'arms', by which of course I mean muskets.  What I'm saying is, for all the ways you can attack the second amendment and those who vociferously support it, that is probably not the angle you want to use.


I wasn't attacking the second amendment. I love the second amendment. Just curious about the "well regulated" angle. I guess the 9th covers it.
 
2013-11-07 11:31:15 AM
I just finished reading Revolutionary Summer: The Birth of American Independence and there's a lot in there about Washington's trouble with the militias.  Its based on letters between the actual participants, and its clear from his writing that Washington had trouble with his regular army: they were the bottom rung of society, people with no skills and no prospects.  But, as bad as they were, the militias were much worse, and Washington put them in combat only as a last resort because 1: they'd just run away at the first sign of a fight, and 2: a large percentage of them showed up without any weapons.

The idea that some local farmers and tradesmen armed with just muskets bested the British army is a fabrication easily debunked by reading accounts of those actually involved, and nothing but political spin started by the newspapers eager to promote independence.   So, when Washington wrote letters to congress about the militia, its pretty clear he is instructing congress to make sure that the resolutions being sent to the states asking for troops includes the requirement that they bring along their own guns and not spears.

Its not a far stretch from that to the 2nd ammendment.
 
2013-11-07 11:32:22 AM

Ivandrago: Secondly, I was an Infantryman in the Army, do non-gun owners believe that combat arms veterans such as myself should be exempt from compulsory firearms training laws? As I've already been trained by the government in proper gun safety.
Just curious as to what others think about that.


Here's a comparison that might interest you. If you were a military pilot, you have a huge shortcut to receive a civilian pilot's license - you just take one written exam, and you get a bunch of read across certificates based on what you flew. It's assumed you know what you're doing based on what you did, and just need to show you understand the differences in procedure.

Since the level of regulation to own a firearm would be significantly lower than the level of regulation to fly a plane, there's extant precedent for allowing a read across.
 
2013-11-07 11:32:29 AM

IrateShadow: skozlaw: Nah... that couldn't possibly be it. They keep reassuring me they're so reasonable! Like dittybopper there! He's always totally reasonable just like he says!


Did anyone ever think these people were reasonable?  By and large these are the same people who flipped shiat in the 90s when the government started mandating all guns be sold with trigger locks.  The friggin things cost under $5 and didn't alter the use or construction of the weapons in any way.


Well, here's the problem:

Dittybopper has stated that a *majority* of gun owners are the type to flip their shiat at this.

So that means that a lot of gun owners are liable to blow up over minor things.

Which kind of destroys the whole "Most gun owners are reasonable, responsible people!" argument.
 
2013-11-07 11:32:56 AM

asquian: Quick, reasonable question. Were the complaints well reasoned, and en masse? Did their FB page lose a million likes that day? Did their subscribership drop by a notable amount?

If so, that's kinda scary, actually. If not, <OMG Who the hell cares?.jpg>


magazine issue just came out, so it will probably take a quarter or two to judge subscriptions (moreso if they're done in increments of a year).  And the importance of the article is that even middle of the edge moderate positions on guns which do not ban a single farking type of gun, RPG, BFG or rail gun are taken as a real life Red Dawn whacking fantasy by gun nuts.
 
2013-11-07 11:33:23 AM
pueblonative

now, if I just so happen to be near the edge of my property and see a couple of elk I'd like to plug for SKGs, or if I drink a little too much Kentucky Bourbon and mistake that owl on my neighbor's roof for an alien, well, I'm still on my property but I ain't shooting it up, now, am I?

What makes you think requiring proficiency testing would correct your morals?
 
2013-11-07 11:33:23 AM
Lol.... this is what the rest of us have been talking about. You make it an all or nothing situation.
 
2013-11-07 11:35:39 AM

bdub77: I don't know I've ever understood this argument. Where I live you are required to register your firearm with the town. It's not like they don't have a f*cking list anyway.


I think they pretty much figured out I had a gun, or was going to have a gun, when they did the background check.
 
2013-11-07 11:35:59 AM

sprawl15: Ivandrago: Secondly, I was an Infantryman in the Army, do non-gun owners believe that combat arms veterans such as myself should be exempt from compulsory firearms training laws? As I've already been trained by the government in proper gun safety.
Just curious as to what others think about that.

Here's a comparison that might interest you. If you were a military pilot, you have a huge shortcut to receive a civilian pilot's license - you just take one written exam, and you get a bunch of read across certificates based on what you flew. It's assumed you know what you're doing based on what you did, and just need to show you understand the differences in procedure.

Since the level of regulation to own a firearm would be significantly lower than the level of regulation to fly a plane, there's extant precedent for allowing a read across.


I'm totally okay with that. Even though there is a substantial number of dumb-asses in the military, on the whole I'd say most people leave with a healthy understanding of firearm safety basics. I spent two weeks mopping floors and cleaning toilets because I accidentally left my rifle on "semi" instead of "safe."

/I also had to carry a 2x2 with "Bic Pen" written on it. You can guess why I had to do that.
 
2013-11-07 11:38:12 AM

cameroncrazy1984: simplicimus: sprawl15: simplicimus: And yet, as I pointed out above, vehicular deaths surpass gun deaths.

one might think most people spend more time in or around motor vehicles than around people shooting guns or shooting guns themselves

Then one might think drivers would be better at driving.

Are you really suggesting that requiring driving licenses is ok but gun training is tyranny?


Not at all. Gun training should be required. I'm just saying it won't solve every gun related problem. But people get lazy about securing their weapons. And there's almost an article a week about unloaded guns going off, even by people teaching gun safety.
 
2013-11-07 11:39:48 AM

RedPhoenix122: Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


Why? It wasn't an issue for the Founders:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

"That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and maneuvres and introduce the system of military discipline before described, throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander in Chief of the State; to make returns to the adjutant general of the state at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrement, and ammunition, of the several corps, and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and general advancement of good order and military disciple; an adjutant general shall make a return of all militia of the state, to the Commander in Chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the president of the United States."
 
2013-11-07 11:41:16 AM

icallhimgamblor: I don't see how these clowns can say there are no limits on the Second Amendment when there are clearly limits on the First. there are already limits on the 2nd.

 
2013-11-07 11:41:35 AM

sprawl15: And still wouldn't make it farking plausible.


You are correct; the fact that such confiscation efforts have demonstrably occurred "makes it farking plausible".
 
2013-11-07 11:41:49 AM
"I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how farking crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that?"
 
2013-11-07 11:43:41 AM

Facetious_Speciest: pueblonative

now, if I just so happen to be near the edge of my property and see a couple of elk I'd like to plug for SKGs, or if I drink a little too much Kentucky Bourbon and mistake that owl on my neighbor's roof for an alien, well, I'm still on my property but I ain't shooting it up, now, am I?

What makes you think requiring proficiency testing would correct your morals?


On the basis that those that do the testing and training have a high enough respect and love for their profession that they would seek to impart some of it to their students and would identify the idiots who have no business being around anything that can perforate something only stronger than paper.

But, let's go to your original idea.  I get a gun "strictly for home use" per your proposal, so I don't have any training in the weapon.  I'm just scared.  Midnight and I hear a noise in my room.  I pull out my gun and fire at the noise.  Only thing is I aim wildly so the bullet goes through the window and hits my neighbor just getting back home from a party, instantly killing him.  Exactly how did the for home use no training work out for my neighbor there?  I didn't leave my property.
 
2013-11-07 11:43:50 AM
Unsurprisingly, it seems subby didn't read the actual editorial in question. There is almost no "research" in the piece; it is merely an opinion.   http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk - Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf

I bring this up because way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms in an infringement.

This statement is utterly meaningless. Not only does he use the phrase "way too many" (?), but most people support the idea that felons and crazies can't legally own firearms, and there are countless statutes that enforce this. Dick is arguing against a position that does not exist in any realistic way.

But many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, infringement.

Once again, talking about a nebulous "many" despite countless laws in all 50 states with the intent of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the insane.

I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same.

Bzzzt, wrong. If you don't want owning a firearm to be a constitutionally protected right, then change the Constitution.

I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.

I must have missed all the propaganda advocating the irresponsible use of firearms. Maybe he saw some that I didn't, because otherwise this is another completely meaningless statement. Nobody thinks other people have the specific right to "use arms irresponsibly." Although ironically, I do hear some of this from anti-gun folks who think "warning shots" are a good alternative to correct use of force.

So yeah. No "research" exists anywhere in the piece, and nearly all of it is meaningless dribble.
 
2013-11-07 11:43:59 AM

pueblonative: cchris_39: pueblonative: cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....

death machines are the same as private medical acts and the right to peacefully elect and choose our representatives and leaders

Ok next false equivalency.

Funny you would choose the phrase "death machines" to defend abortion clinics.

Since when did people use guns in medical procedures?  Oh, there was this guy. . .


[upload.wikimedia.org image 257x387]

Extra credit, what medical procedure did Dr. Roland perform?  Go on, guess. . .


Blepharoplasty?
 
2013-11-07 11:44:25 AM

cchris_39: Regulate guns - conservative heads explode.

Regulate abortion or voter registration - liberal heads explode.

Ok next thread....


It's almost like one involves the use of deadly weapons and the others don't.
 
2013-11-07 11:45:13 AM

new_york_monty: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the  majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.


Why not though? There are mental health lists they want to enact instead. As a pilot I'm on about 10 lists for that alone. What makes these gun nutters think they're so special? They think they're going to rise up against the full force of even a tenth of the US Military and win? They don't offer a logical argument against background checks either.

Kind of like magazine size, they use an illogical argument. Magazine size is unimportant, but don't you dare regulate the size because it's important. That's the logic they use, and it's completely baffling to me how their heads don't asplode from the logic fail.
 
2013-11-07 11:46:15 AM

MithrandirBooga: "I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how farking crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that?"


WHAT'S IN THE BOX?!?
 
2013-11-07 11:46:54 AM

Ivandrago: Even though there is a substantial number of dumb-asses in the military, on the whole I'd say most people leave with a healthy understanding of firearm safety basics.


Absolutely. I mean, the only thing that I think might possibly be relevant would be a refresher on the civilian gun laws, especially the state regs like where you can carry, if open carry is allowed, etc. Which at worst would be a pamphlet and a one page T/F questionnaire.

Dimensio: You are correct; the fact that such confiscation efforts have demonstrably occurred "makes it farking plausible".


(P ⇒ Q) ⇔ (non-Q ⇒ non-P)
 
2013-11-07 11:46:56 AM

Tomahawk513: The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century.  yada yada more bullshiat.


Oh, look. It's this bullshiat again.
Back to the  Founders:
"That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779,* shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline."


*Title: Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.

/In other words, you lie.
 
2013-11-07 11:47:44 AM

Ivandrago: I'm totally okay with that. Even though there is a substantial number of dumb-asses in the military, on the whole I'd say most people leave with a healthy understanding of firearm safety basics. I spent two weeks mopping floors and cleaning toilets because I accidentally left my rifle on "semi" instead of "safe."


The topic the op-ed was addressing was mostly toward 16 hours of training for concealed carry permits as not being excessive. These laws can change and vary by state so there is no way to know if your military training covered what is necessary. There is also training on things like home safety and firearms with children, and other topics that may not be covered in combat firearms safety.
 
2013-11-07 11:48:18 AM

skozlaw: Or, you know... change the law so that idiots who leave their guns laying around in a living room full of children can't own guns anymore.


I'm not against that at all.

skozlaw: No, we don't. There is no "basketball" class as part of any school's curriculum anywhere in this country.


Basketball is part of physical education curricula, as could be shooting sports.  I'm not saying "go to gun class every other day for a semester," I'm saying that it could integrate into phys ed just like every other sport we teach.

Also: it would get conservatives to loosen up the purse strings a bit on education, which based on their politician's statements they hate with a burning passion.
 
2013-11-07 11:48:25 AM
pueblonative

On the basis that those that do the testing and training have a high enough respect and love for their profession that they would seek to impart some of it to their students and would identify the idiots who have no business being around anything that can perforate something only stronger than paper.

A nice thought, I suppose, but it's already illegal for you to get drunk and shoot up your neighbor's house. You know that, right? This has nothing at all to do with the idea of testing for those who wish to regularly use arms around other people.

But, let's go to your original idea. I get a gun "strictly for home use" per your proposal, so I don't have any training in the weapon. I'm just scared. Midnight and I hear a noise in my room. I pull out my gun and fire at the noise. Only thing is I aim wildly so the bullet goes through the window and hits my neighbor just getting back home from a party, instantly killing him. Exactly how did the for home use no training work out for my neighbor there? I didn't leave my property.

It sounds like you shouldn't have a weapon. Unfortunately for your neighbor, you have a right to until you do something retarded that demonstrates you shouldn't. Is that really where your problem lies?
 
2013-11-07 11:49:00 AM

Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government.  As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.


The real Irony, is that their purity, "you're exactly like us or you're the enemy" nature of the right wing gun crowd, mixed with their farked up appeal to authority means they will likely be the ones voting any tyrant into office.
 
2013-11-07 11:52:10 AM
In RE "Fudds," I recently read a discussion of the word "nimrod" as a description of a loser or fool. The Biblical Nimrod was a king and mighty hunter and the term "nimrod" was traditionally used as a synonym for "hunter."

"In 15th-century English, 'Nimrod' had come to mean 'tyrant'. Coined in 20th-century American English, the term is now commonly used to mean 'dimwitted or stupid fellow', a usage first recorded in 1932 and popularized by the cartoon character Bugs Bunny, who sarcastically refers to the hunter Elmer Fudd as 'nimrod',[26][27] possibly as an ironic connection between "mighty hunter" and 'poor little Nimrod', i.e. Fudd." [sic--all misplaced punctuation from the Wikipedia article.]

Now ask me about the etymology of "dude."
 
2013-11-07 11:54:18 AM

aelat: So yeah. No "research" exists anywhere in the piece, and nearly all of it is meaningless dribble.


He's clearly uninformed. He has no background on Constitutional law, never participated in gun law legislation, and has no ties to the indust...oh wait, he DOES have all that? Well, who gave him the right to write his OPINION on the subject?
 
2013-11-07 11:55:37 AM

inglixthemad: Kind of like magazine size, they use an illogical argument. Magazine size is unimportant, but don't you dare regulate the size because it's important. That's the logic they use, and it's completely baffling to me how their heads don't asplode from the logic fail.


Eh, the problem is often that the regulations make very little sense in terms of practical design. The assault weapon ban's a classic example of something that makes absolutely no goddamned sense. Granted, the idiots respond with even dumber shiat but the lack of really understanding how guns work has been a pretty common thread through regulatory issues. Magazine size limitations wouldn't be a huge factor for saving lives in mass shootings which themselves are a tiny fraction of gun violence, yet they'd annoy the shiat out of millions of gun owners while being either practically unenforceable (if there are grandfather provisions) or unconstitutional (if there aren't).
 
2013-11-07 11:56:33 AM

clambam: In RE "Fudds," I recently read a discussion of the word "nimrod" as a description of a loser or fool. The Biblical Nimrod was a king and mighty hunter and the term "nimrod" was traditionally used as a synonym for "hunter."

"In 15th-century English, 'Nimrod' had come to mean 'tyrant'. Coined in 20th-century American English, the term is now commonly used to mean 'dimwitted or stupid fellow', a usage first recorded in 1932 and popularized by the cartoon character Bugs Bunny, who sarcastically refers to the hunter Elmer Fudd as 'nimrod',[26][27] possibly as an ironic connection between "mighty hunter" and 'poor little Nimrod', i.e. Fudd." [sic--all misplaced punctuation from the Wikipedia article.]

Now ask me about the etymology of "dude."


Also a fantastic piece of music by Elgar.
 
2013-11-07 11:59:18 AM
I was unaware that Elgar wrote any fantastic pieces of music (sorry!). That said, you might enjoy the following link:

http://www.classicfm.com/discover/music/composer-insults/
 
2013-11-07 11:59:24 AM

Facetious_Speciest: t sounds like you shouldn't have a weapon. Unfortunately for your neighbor, you have a right to until you do something retarded that demonstrates you shouldn't. Is that really where your problem lies?


So he has to wait to die before he can be protected from me, an obviously unqualified person, owning a gun whose purpose is to kill.  Wasn't there a judge who said something about the Constitution not being a suicide pact?
 
2013-11-07 12:01:27 PM

aelat: Unsurprisingly, it seems subby didn't read the actual editorial in question. There is almost no "research" in the piece; it is merely an opinion.   http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk - Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf

I bring this up because way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms in an infringement.

This statement is utterly meaningless. Not only does he use the phrase "way too many" (?), but most people support the idea that felons and crazies can't legally own firearms, and there are countless statutes that enforce this. Dick is arguing against a position that does not exist in any realistic way.


yes, and the NRA and pro gun crowd has fought these restrictions tooth and nail.  And they are still fighting universal back ground checks.   So the argument he put forward is 100% correct.

But many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, infringement.

Once again, talking about a nebulous "many" despite countless laws in all 50 states with the intent of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the insane.


And again, these laws have been fought by the NRA and pro gun crowd.


I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same.

Bzzzt, wrong. If you don't want owning a firearm to be a constitutionally protected right, then change the Constitution.



So now you are saying it is a protected right that can not be regulated, despite having just argued the other way?

I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.

I must have missed all the propaganda advocating the irresponsible use of firearms. Maybe he saw some that I didn't, because otherwise this is another completely meaningless statement. Nobody thinks other people have the specific right to "use arms irresponsibly." Although ironically, I do hear some of this from anti-gun folks who think "warning shots" are a good alternative to correct use of force.



Care to show where he made that claim?  Let me tell you what I have seen first hand over the years.  I have seen several conversations where one person states their possible desire to buy a gun.  almost never I seen a gun owner talk about responsibility.  Its happened a few times, but even when it does, its the shortest part of the conversation.  What does happen every time is this: the conversation immediately goes to "what kind of gun are you going to get,"  or something along the lines of "you should get this because it will blow their head off."

There is a difference between not supporting safety and responsibility and openly advocating for irresponsible and unsafe behavior.

So yeah. No "research" exists anywhere in the piece, and nearly all of it is meaningless dribble.


Are you talking about his column, or your post?  I can not tell.
 
2013-11-07 12:03:40 PM
pueblonative

So he has to wait to die before he can be protected from me, an obviously unqualified person, owning a gun whose purpose is to kill.

Well, he doesn't have to die, but yes, you can't be denied a right because someone imagines you might misuse it someday, as a general thing. You actually have to compromise yourself in some way before we take away your ability to legally vote, own a weapon, etc. It's crazy like that, the whole liberty thing.
 
2013-11-07 12:04:52 PM

dittybopper: dletter: RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway?  Why would they really need a cut & dry list?  There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.

Because they can't possibly go house to house just seizing guns, and general warrants are illegal and the kind of "shoot the bastards" type of warning sign.  No legitimate entity under the US Constitution can just search a whole area under a general warrant.  Ever.

But if you have a central list of all gun owners, and the types of guns they own, you now have "probable cause" to support a search warrant if a certain type or caliber of gun is banned.  Plus, they don't have to expend the actual effort to go from house to house.  They already know where they are.

So yes, a central registry, especially a computerized one, would make it much, much more efficient to do that sort of thing, and easier to do under existing US laws relating to search and seizures and the requirement for a particularized warrant supported by probable cause.

*THAT* is why there is opposition to that sort of thing.


dittybopper: factoryconnection: I hear a lot of the arguments against it because I'm former military and have a LOT of friends that are firearms enthusiasts.  They see it as a burden on themselves (the law-abiding) that doesn't affect criminals nor criminal behavior.  The counter-argument is that, if we actually controlled the flow of guns person-to-person in the country, that the "good guys" would eventually stem the flow of guns to the "bad guys" through long-chain, person-to-person transfers.  That is the most common way that criminals get armed.  The "good guys" wouldn't want to have to answer for why Jimmy the Felon had the weapon that they bought three years ago.

1.  The "time to crime" for guns actually averages over 10 years, according to the ATF.

2. The real reason that there is massive opposition to that sort of control over guns is that it supplies the government with probable cause if they ever decide that any particular model, type, or caliber of gun should now be banned.

That's the real problem.  A comprehensive registry of guns and gun owners is relatively benign in a democracy, right up until the time that there is some event that causes people to look to banning a certain type of gun.  Then it becomes an effective method to collect all of them.  That is what happened in the UK in the late 1990s:  All guns had to be registered there, and handguns especially were subject to relatively strict controls.  But after the mass shooting in Dunblane, they banned all modern handguns, and they had the means to effectively collect them all from the legal owners.

If there is no central registry, though, you can't effectively ban them.  You can't collect them because you don't know who has them.  You can talk to the original purchasers, but they may have subsequently sold them, or (my personal favorite), "it fell out of the canoe into the lake when we capsized it while I was fishing about 5 years ago".

Another thing that isn't really talked about is that the extra hassle ...


sprawl15: dittybopper: you now have "probable cause"

no, you don't

dittybopper: So yes, a central registry, especially a computerized one, would make it much, much more efficient to do that sort of thing

And still wouldn't make it farking plausible.

You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns, while ignoring everything from the acceptance of guns on both sides of the aisle including among those who have no desire to own guns, the utter impracticality of a gun ban making the legislation impossible even if people tried to comply with it, the requirement of a farking constitutional amendment to allow such a thing to happen, and the groundswell of resistance that would occur between gun owners and the 'grabbers'.

Your boohoo about a boogeyman does more to undermine the pro-gun position than anything else on the farking planet. Grow up, take the night light out, and act like a farking adult.


In addition to what sprawl15 said, there's also the small matter of a certain distinction between the UK and the USA ― namely, our Constitution. Never mind the Second Amendment for now. Take a gander at Article I §9 ¶3 for the Federal Government, and Article I §10 ¶1 for the States. Probable cause can only exist if there is suspicion of a crime, and both the Feds and the States are strictly forbidden from making any action a crime retroactively (Ex Post Facto). So, if you bought a gun that was subsequently banned, you committed no crime and thus there is no probable cause. This is why "grandfather clauses" exist.
 
2013-11-07 12:08:18 PM
I've decided that I'm going to start referring to the Second Amendment as a "technicality." That's what people call the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when they're inconvenient, and the rubes mostly eat it up.
 
2013-11-07 12:09:04 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Tomahawk513: The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century.  yada yada more bullshiat.

Oh, look. It's this bullshiat again.
Back to the  Founders:
"That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779,* shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline."


*Title: Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States.

/In other words, you lie.


Hey man, if I'm wrong that's awesome! I'm ALL FOR regulations! Also, dude, read the rest of my post.
 
2013-11-07 12:10:03 PM
Yeah, they call it 'Firearms Safety' but we all know what really happens.

You pull your Dodge Ram "duely" into parking lot at the gun range and...

BOOM!

Next thing you know your on one of Fartbamao's trains to San Francisco to be forcibly gay married and assigned to a mosque.

Fool me once...
 
2013-11-07 12:13:53 PM

blastoh: aelat: Unsurprisingly, it seems subby didn't read the actual editorial in question. There is almost no "research" in the piece; it is merely an opinion.   http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk - Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf

I bring this up because way too many gun owners still seem to believe that any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms in an infringement.

This statement is utterly meaningless. Not only does he use the phrase "way too many" (?), but most people support the idea that felons and crazies can't legally own firearms, and there are countless statutes that enforce this. Dick is arguing against a position that does not exist in any realistic way.

yes, and the NRA and pro gun crowd has fought these restrictions tooth and nail.  And they are still fighting universal back ground checks.   So the argument he put forward is 100% correct.

But many argue that any regulation at all is, by definition, infringement.

Once again, talking about a nebulous "many" despite countless laws in all 50 states with the intent of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the insane.

And again, these laws have been fought by the NRA and pro gun crowd.


I understand that driving a car is not a right protected by the Constitution, but to me the basic principle is the same.

Bzzzt, wrong. If you don't want owning a firearm to be a constitutionally protected right, then change the Constitution.


So now you are saying it is a protected right that can not be regulated, despite having just argued the other way?

I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe that they have a right to use them irresponsibly.

I must have missed all the propaganda advocating the irresponsible use of firearms. Maybe he saw some that I didn't, because otherwise this is another completely meaningless statement. Nobody thinks other people have the specific right to "use arms irresponsi ...


The author said that it is the position of "many" that ANY restriction on gun ownership is an infringement on the right to own guns. This is a position that neither the NRA nor most gun owners advocate. Bringing up the NRA's fight against expanding background checks is changing the goalposts as they are NOT advocating removing all regulations on firearm ownership. The gun-owning population as a whole as well as the NRA does agree with varying degrees of regulation. Some want more, some want less, but most people want some degree of regulation. To argue otherwise is to be deliberately disingenuous.

So now you are saying it is a protected right that can not be regulated, despite having just argued the other way?

I made no argument whatsoever about owning a firearm being a right that could not be regulated. I don't know how you could have possibly inferred that from what I wrote. I do believe that there should be limitations on firearm ownership. But for a guy with a supposed background in Constitutional law, the author seems to have no appreciation for the differences between a right that is Constitutionally protected, and one that is not. Saying "the basic principle is the same" is laughable.
 
2013-11-07 12:13:57 PM

COMALite J: In addition to what sprawl15 said, there's also the small matter of a certain distinction between the UK and the USA ― namely, our Constitution. Never mind the Second Amendment for now. Take a gander at Article I §9 ¶3 for the Federal Government, and Article I §10 ¶1 for the States. Probable cause can only exist if there is suspicion of a crime, and both the Feds and the States are strictly forbidden from making any action a crime retroactively (Ex Post Facto). So, if you bought a gun that was subsequently banned, you committed no crime and thus there is no probable cause. This is why "grandfather clauses" exist.


Prohibiting "ex post facto" laws means only that the federal government cannot enact legislation holding owners of a prohibited class of firearms criminally liable for possessing those firearms prior to the effective date of the legislation. The clause does not prohibit Congress from passing legislation prohibiting possession of a class of firearms at some future time and mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date.

"Grandfather" clauses exist in proposed firearm bans as a means of attempting to attain wider support and due to the recognition that collecting and confiscating all currently owned firearms of a particular class is impractical due to an inability for the government to account for them.
 
2013-11-07 12:16:44 PM
The NRA doesn't give a fark about your freedoms. They just want your donations and dues to pay for their never ending fight.
 
2013-11-07 12:18:30 PM

dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?


Sure.  We could also require training to vote in a proper manner.  Maybe have a literacy test to make sure you're capable.

/yes, the main concern is de facto gun control.  The other concern is that it's an enumerated right (one of the top two even) and you're expecting me to jump through hoops to exercise a right?  Yeah, screw you buddy.
 
2013-11-07 12:20:56 PM

Dimensio: The clause does not prohibit Congress from passing legislation prohibiting possession of a class of firearms at some future time and mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date.

The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.-Calder v. Bull, landmark ex post facto case

Even prohibition wasn't a regulation against possession of extant alcohol or consumption of the same, it was about manufacture, sale, or transportation.
 
2013-11-07 12:21:04 PM
As someone who likes guns, and likes shooting guns:
imokwiththis.jpg
 
2013-11-07 12:25:13 PM

MayoSlather: dittybopper: 2. There is nothing that the first group loves more than knifing perceived traitors.  Here are some examples:

This is the hardline base on the right that is full of tea partiers. They don't want compromise, they want what they want the exact way they want it, and simply getting what they want isn't enough, they want everyone else to fall in line with their beliefs as well. These are the same people that are constantly suspect of people in their political party of being RINOs.


I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.
 
2013-11-07 12:25:39 PM

Tomahawk513: The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century. Then it meant "well stocked". So a well regulated militia is actually a well stocked militia. Now, I don't personally believe that we ought to enforce the 18th century definition of 'well regulated' unless we also enforce the 18th century definition of 'arms', by which of course I mean muskets. What I'm saying is, for all the ways you can attack the second amendment and those who vociferously support it, that is probably not the angle you want to use.


So what you're claiming is that, from a Constitutional standpoint, we're required to have the government pay for guns for whomever wants them just in case they're ever required to take up arms against the US government and each individual person gets to decide if it's time to hold a revolt.
 
2013-11-07 12:26:09 PM

LarryDan43: The NRA doesn't give a fark about your freedoms. They just want your donations and dues to pay for their never ending fight.


Not to mention the organization really appears to be more geared towards gun manufacturers than gun owners.
 
2013-11-07 12:28:38 PM

busy chillin': Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Well regulated.

Please don't, just please, please don't.  Every farking time, someone has to bring that up.  Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on?  We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.

What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.


If you use Justice Scalia's official copy of Webster's Dictionary from the 1780's, well-regulated means 'in good working order, like a clock'

For funsies, ask what the period definition of 'infringed' was.
And how that definition doesn't apply, but well-regulated's does.
 
2013-11-07 12:29:15 PM
GUN NUTS just can't stand free expression, proto-fascists every one.
 
2013-11-07 12:29:35 PM

Witty_Retort: For funsies, ask what the period definition of 'infringed' was.


it meant "with a gold fringe, denoting maritime law"
 
2013-11-07 12:31:05 PM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


Too much effort. The government already has a list of potentially violent right-wing gun owners: any internet comment thread regarding sensible gun safety regulations.
 
2013-11-07 12:31:13 PM

monoski: Not to mention the organization really appears to be more geared towards gun manufacturers than gun owners.


Nah, you are thinking about Obama. He was just dubbed the "US Firearms Salesman of the Year" for the 5th straigh year.  Hard to compete against that.
 
2013-11-07 12:34:38 PM

sprawl15: Witty_Retort: For funsies, ask what the period definition of 'infringed' was.

it meant "with a gold fringe, denoting maritime law"


so "shall not be infringed" means that we can't have FABULOUS guns?

/buncha commies....
 
2013-11-07 12:34:49 PM
I think a lot of posters are missing a larger point. I hear an absurd amount of lamenting about the media, but I seldom hear how the right demands that the media toe the line. Guns and Ammo will face a huge backlash, at least for them anyway. The right is known for throwing disproportionate fits when a media outlet they have influence over even tries to cover a topic they consider taboo. This combined with plenty of encouragement from the power brokers has poisoned the discourse at every level that matters. The number fanatics we have in America has reached epidemic levels, and the psychological unhealthy conditions that have helped foster them are only getting worse for many. I'm not expecting the whole country to just boil over, but I believe we have (tens of?) millions of very damaged people that will need to be addressed. Oh, and those people are armed, angry and irrational also they hate your guts. Good luck with that.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:39 PM

LarryDan43: The NRA doesn't give a fark about your freedoms. They just want your donations and dues to pay for their never ending fight.


Taking your statement at face value:
If there was no freedom, they wouldn't need to fight and there would be no need for donations ad dues.  Hence, they care deeply about this freedom.  Your point makes no sense.
 
2013-11-07 12:36:50 PM

sprawl15: Witty_Retort: For funsies, ask what the period definition of 'infringed' was.

it meant "with a gold fringe, denoting maritime law"


"I regret that I have but 1 'Funny' to give"
-Rand Paul
 
2013-11-07 12:37:50 PM

brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.


That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.
 
2013-11-07 12:41:00 PM
This traitor will pay for double-crossing The People of the Gun!
 
2013-11-07 12:41:04 PM

sprawl15: Dimensio: The clause does not prohibit Congress from passing legislation prohibiting possession of a class of firearms at some future time and mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date.The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.-Calder v. Bull, landmark ex post facto case

Even prohibition wasn't a regulation against possession of extant alcohol or consumption of the same, it was about manufacture, sale, or transportation.


Wait, you think that once a gun is legally owned that it can never be outlawed? Because that has definitely happened. I just want to make sure your objection is clear.
 
2013-11-07 12:41:49 PM

BMulligan: brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.


And those limitations are on how we can use those rights, not on the rights themselves. We ban yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, not the word 'fire.'
 
2013-11-07 12:42:43 PM

inglixthemad: Magazine size is unimportant, but don't you dare regulate the size because it's important.


Who says it is unimportant?  That argument is what I hear from the gun control side more than the gun rights side.

Overall, it provides a convienience that you don't have to reload as much. It also has drawbacks and you rifle sometimes is not as easy to shoot off of a rest or bench.  It has its pros and cons, but I don't hear many gun-rights folks saying that it is unimportant.
 
2013-11-07 12:44:11 PM

BMulligan: brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.


Personally, I wish they were more skewed towards the absolute and unbending side, rather than the free speech zones, eminent domain grabs, Patriot Acts, exigent circumstances and no knock warrants crap we have today.
 
2013-11-07 12:45:57 PM

odinsposse: sprawl15: Dimensio: The clause does not prohibit Congress from passing legislation prohibiting possession of a class of firearms at some future time and mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date.The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.-Calder v. Bull, landmark ex post facto case

Even prohibition wasn't a regulation against possession of extant alcohol or consumption of the same, it was about manufacture, sale, or transportation.

Wait, you think that once a gun is legally owned that it can never be outlawed? Because that has definitely happened. I just want to make sure your objection is clear.


As I recall, the "assault weapons ban" enacted in the city of New York in the 1990s had no "grandfather clause", and owners of banned firearms were required to surrender or otherwise dispose of them.

A similar ban was enacted in Cook County in Illinois.
 
2013-11-07 12:46:56 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns

Their entire argument relies on paranoia.


Ironically, in the end, the gun nuts will be the cause for stricter gun laws.
 
2013-11-07 12:47:35 PM

BMulligan: brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.


What are you implying ?   You think people should 'bend' on womens rights or on the issue of slavery ?

Would you tell a person who is gay they can't get married or have a job because no ones rights are absolute ?    Sorry sir,  you are black,  we can't serve you any food....   ?

No,  I don't think we want that.
 
2013-11-07 12:48:59 PM

blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.


It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?
 
2013-11-07 12:50:37 PM

Tomahawk513: Hey man, if I'm wrong that's awesome! I'm ALL FOR regulations! Also, dude, read the rest of my post.


Stop lying.
"Well regulated" has meant "well regulated" since Geoffrey farking Chaucer was writing about gap-toothed widows.
The argument that well regulated did not mean well regulated in 1789 is a lie: It's self-serving bullshiat.
 
2013-11-07 12:50:45 PM

NeverDrunk23: Ironically, in the end, the gun nuts will be the cause for stricter gun laws.


I think you are correct.
 
2013-11-07 12:51:55 PM

NeverDrunk23: Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns

Their entire argument relies on paranoia.

Ironically, in the end, the gun nuts will be the cause for stricter gun laws.


That doesn't make sense.

Gubmint:  we want to take your guns!

Gun nuts:  Nu uh, you can't take our guns.

Gubmint:  Oh, listen to that, you're clearly nuts so we're going to take your guns!

doesn't sound ironic to me, just gun grabbers being gun grabbers
 
2013-11-07 12:55:11 PM
I don't understand the argument. If the government goes nuts and turns against its citizens, why would it need to come to your house to take your guns? The government has drones, nukes, sarin, mustard gas, and any number of other weapons that don't require them to literally come to your house. The extremists have already guaranteed that the government has all the weapons it could want since Reagan took office. It's also weird how the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct but the 4th and 5th, far more pivotal to large-scale freedom, they couldn't give a flying crap about. They need to worry about the other rights cause once those are given away, those guns you have won't much effect on a totalitarian goverment's fighter jets.
 
2013-11-07 12:55:14 PM

Dimensio: As I recall, the "assault weapons ban" enacted in the city of New York in the 1990s had no "grandfather clause", and owners of banned firearms were required to surrender or otherwise dispose of them.

A similar ban was enacted in Cook County in Illinois.


Right. As well as the SKS mess in California at end of the 90s. There may be others but those are the most modern ones.

I just can't tell what  sprawl is arguing for since making something that was once legal illegal happens constantly without violating Ex Post Facto.
 
2013-11-07 12:55:20 PM

Farker Soze: Gubmint: we want to take your guns!


WTF?
 
2013-11-07 12:55:55 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?


Your argument may hold water if the fat guy brigade had Apaches and Abrams.
 
2013-11-07 12:57:02 PM

Farker Soze: NeverDrunk23: Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns

Their entire argument relies on paranoia.

Ironically, in the end, the gun nuts will be the cause for stricter gun laws.

That doesn't make sense.

Gubmint:  we want to take your guns!

Gun nuts:  Nu uh, you can't take our guns.

Gubmint:  Oh, listen to that, you're clearly nuts so we're going to take your guns!

doesn't sound ironic to me, just gun grabbers being gun grabbers


Sounds to me like he's an enemy of The People of The Gun.
 
2013-11-07 12:57:18 PM
the MA AWB has a grandfather clause for high capacity magazines

TMYK
===*
 
2013-11-07 12:57:26 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: WTF?


Are you that unfamiliar with the Gun Control movement?
 
2013-11-07 12:59:19 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?


That issue was settled decisively in favor of federal government on April 9, 1865. I, for one, do not particularly care for the idea of a "do-over" that might involve the use of nuclear weapons. Should that become the case while I am still capable of bearing arms, I will be one of those shooting the traitors who take up arms against the United States.
And "tyrannical"? Please identify any federal official who is suppressing your vote to the nearest US Attorney for prosecution.
 
2013-11-07 12:59:39 PM

Jackson Herring: the MA AWB has a grandfather clause for high capacity magazines

TMYK
===*


Again, most grandfather clauses are there to help win support for the bill and help them with the sticky problem of getting folks to turn them in.
 
2013-11-07 01:01:59 PM
As far as I can tell, GUN NUTS think "well regulated" just means Ex-Lax for breakfast.
 
2013-11-07 01:01:59 PM

Rapmaster2000: Farker Soze: NeverDrunk23: Dusk-You-n-Me: sprawl15: You do nothing but parrot the same ridiculous horror story of The Gubmint coming and taking all your guns

Their entire argument relies on paranoia.

Ironically, in the end, the gun nuts will be the cause for stricter gun laws.

That doesn't make sense.

Gubmint:  we want to take your guns!

Gun nuts:  Nu uh, you can't take our guns.

Gubmint:  Oh, listen to that, you're clearly nuts so we're going to take your guns!

doesn't sound ironic to me, just gun grabbers being gun grabbers

Sounds to me like he's an enemy of The People of The Gun.


Heh, I bet that catches on almost as well as BOB has.  But keep with it.
 
2013-11-07 01:02:07 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: And "tyrannical"?


*The Ghost of Vici Weaver  waves at you*
 
2013-11-07 01:02:35 PM
Holy shiat! I just put FARK's resident NRA fellatio expert on ignore and now there are 3 posts in this thread.
 
2013-11-07 01:05:13 PM
How does anyone involved with publishing a gun rag not know to not Zumbo yourself?
 
2013-11-07 01:05:59 PM
Looks like Guns and Ammo just made The List
 
2013-11-07 01:06:20 PM

odinsposse: Wait, you think that once a gun is legally owned that it can never be outlawed?


ooh which red herring is this going to be i wonder

Dimensio: As I recall, the "assault weapons ban" enacted in the city of New York in the 1990s had no "grandfather clause"


You'll have to cite the law. The NY State law from around the same time has an explicit grandfather clause.

Dimensio: A similar ban was enacted in Cook County in Illinois.


Not similar at all. Revocation of FOID cards for mental health issues according to the county's interpretation of federal statute is substantially distinct from either the topic or the NY/NYC AWB.
 
2013-11-07 01:06:46 PM
1) Make training required.
2) Refuse to certify trainers
3) Profit!

Congress has a 12% approval rating and people are begging them to limit people's rights. If you trust the government to only implement reasonable restrictions, then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
2013-11-07 01:07:14 PM

DayeOfJustice: I don't understand the argument. If the government goes nuts and turns against its citizens, why would it need to come to your house to take your guns? The government has drones, nukes, sarin, mustard gas, and any number of other weapons that don't require them to literally come to your house. The extremists have already guaranteed that the government has all the weapons it could want since Reagan took office. It's also weird how the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct but the 4th and 5th, far more pivotal to large-scale freedom, they couldn't give a flying crap about. They need to worry about the other rights cause once those are given away, those guns you have won't much effect on a totalitarian goverment's fighter jets.


The sad part is the Founding Fathers meant for the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to protect the government in case of a rebellion or invasion but thanks to anti-government extremists it's been corrupted into a national self-destruct button. And the people who believe they are the "well-regulated militia" are the same reason 40 miles outside of any major city the road signs are filled with tiny holes.
 
2013-11-07 01:11:56 PM

odinsposse: As well as the SKS mess in California at end of the 90s.


Which wasn't a confiscation. It was people refusing to get their weapons registered, being lazy and stupid through multiple grace periods until the courts said that people were given more than enough chances to register their weapon as an assault weapon and negated the last round. And there was no meaningful attempt to go and actually confiscate weapons. Which is pretty farking important when you're calling it a 'confiscation'.

odinsposse: I just can't tell what sprawl is arguing for


Yes, laws can be complicated.
 
2013-11-07 01:13:19 PM

sprawl15: You'll have to cite the law. The NY State law from around the same time has an explicit grandfather clause.


I am referring specifically to a city law passed in 1991, not to the recently enacted state law.
 
2013-11-07 01:15:12 PM

Dimensio: not to the recently enacted state law.


And if you believe Governor Cuomo, confiscation was "on the table" during secret, midnight deliberations on the drafting of the NYSAFE Act.
 
2013-11-07 01:15:35 PM
new_york_monty:

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the  majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.

This was done in many places at least through the 1950's.

Great idea, but a lot of people will not allow their children to handle guns,  so I wonder how effective it could be.
 
2013-11-07 01:15:56 PM

Dimensio: not to the recently enacted state law.


It's pretty amazing how just in these few words it's obvious you didn't read either the post ("from around the same time") or the link (which specifies grandfathering in 1993).

Dimensio: I am referring specifically to a city law passed in 1991


So cite the text of the law. That's what I'm looking for and specifically asked for.
 
2013-11-07 01:16:12 PM

sprawl15: You'll have to cite the law. The NY State law from around the same time has an explicit grandfather clause.


I have located the specific text of the law in question. Note that the law includes no "grandfathering" provision, and no compensation is provided to owners who were forced by law to surrender their firearms.
 
2013-11-07 01:16:22 PM

DayeOfJustice: I don't understand the argument. If the government goes nuts and turns against its citizens, why would it need to come to your house to take your guns? The government has drones, nukes, sarin, mustard gas, and any number of other weapons that don't require them to literally come to your house. The extremists have already guaranteed that the government has all the weapons it could want since Reagan took office. It's also weird how the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct but the 4th and 5th, far more pivotal to large-scale freedom, they couldn't give a flying crap about. They need to worry about the other rights cause once those are given away, those guns you have won't much effect on a totalitarian goverment's fighter jets.


because blackie ofartbangbus is president and babby jeebuz.  study it out
 
2013-11-07 01:18:57 PM

dittybopper: 1. The "time to crime" for guns actually averages over 10 years, according to the ATF.


10.8 years for guns they can trace.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/10/25/GR201 0 102501384.html


Right now it is next to impossible to bring a case against an individual who knowingly sells a gun to a criminal. Tracking gun sales will make it much more easy, making people less willing to do it, which means it will be harder for criminals to get guns.

Ensuring that you aren't selling to soemoen who has a right to own a gun doesn't seem overlyburdensome to me. IOn fact nto doing it seems downright negligient.
 
2013-11-07 01:19:19 PM

factoryconnection: I'm not against that at all.


Unfortunately, the only people who ever speak up when it comes time to do anything more complicated than answering a phone poll are against it. Because, apparently, holding people accountable for their actions is a violation of some sort of imaginary freedom. And since the lunatics are the only ones who ever talk when it comes time to do anything harder than answer a phone poll, we don't get to have sensible things.

factoryconnection: as could be shooting sports


Shooting "sports" are not a physical activity by any meaningful definition. It's already bad enough that some schools have golf in gym. Let's not further dilute the already watered-down notion of what constitutes physical activity.

If you're going to teach gun safety as part of the curriculum, put it where it makes logical sense: health class. Although, like I said, I'd be a bit surprised if a number of schools don't already do this.
 
2013-11-07 01:24:21 PM

factoryconnection: The counter-argument is that, if we actually controlled the flow of guns person-to-person in the country, that the "good guys" would eventually stem the flow of guns to the "bad guys" through long-chain, person-to-person transfers.  That is the most common way that criminals get armed.  The "good guys" wouldn't want to have to answer for why Jimmy the Felon had the weapon that they bought three years ago.


This.

I wonder if any of them actually take the time to think about where the criminals get their guns from in the first place. It's not like the magically appear out of thin air. They start as legal guns and things go wrong from there. It's almost like they're afraid of being responsible for their gun, personally.
 
2013-11-07 01:24:54 PM

dustbunnyboo: new_york_monty:

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the  majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.

This was done in many places at least through the 1950's.

Great idea, but a lot of people will not allow their children to handle guns,  so I wonder how effective it could be.


Honestly, even just hammering the four basic rules of gun handling into their pulpy little brains would be worlds better than what we have now. And you don't even need a gun in the classroom to teach the four rules. I'd prefer comprehensive safety training and some time to actually teach them to shoot, but I know (for the reason you state) that would be a very hard sell. But the four rules need to be universally known.
 
2013-11-07 01:25:13 PM

Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.


Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.
 
2013-11-07 01:25:54 PM

HeadLever: monoski: Not to mention the organization really appears to be more geared towards gun manufacturers than gun owners.

Nah, you are thinking about Obama. He was just dubbed the "US Firearms Salesman of the Year" for the 5th straigh year.  Hard to compete against that.


We have not seen a salesman like Barry since Willie Horton.
 
2013-11-07 01:26:05 PM
 
2013-11-07 01:28:52 PM

sprawl15: Good lord (d.) is worded badly


It is a gun control law....

I also like how gun control has been re-branded as "gun safety," kind of like what the creationists did with "intelligent design."
 
2013-11-07 01:30:49 PM

sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.


Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.
 
2013-11-07 01:32:35 PM

busy chillin': Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Tomahawk513: busy chillin': Well regulated.

Please don't, just please, please don't.  Every farking time, someone has to bring that up.  Can everyone please act like they never saw this and move on?  We all know, no reason to dirty another thread over it.

What are the replies to that statement?

How does "well regulated" mean "no rules at all?"

I guess I haven't been in a politics tab gun thread for a while....didn't know it dirtied threads.

The terms 'Well Regulated' don't mean today what they did in the late 18th century.  Then it meant "well stocked".  So a well regulated militia is actually a well stocked militia.  Now, I don't personally believe that we ought to enforce the 18th century definition of 'well regulated' unless we also enforce the 18th century definition of 'arms', by which of course I mean muskets.  What I'm saying is, for all the ways you can attack the second amendment and those who vociferously support it, that is probably not the angle you want to use.

I wasn't attacking the second amendment. I love the second amendment. Just curious about the "well regulated" angle. I guess the 9th covers it.


While there is a definition of "well regulated" that did mean "well stocked" or "in working order", that definition was by no means the only one. There are several citations in the Oxford English Dictionary from before, during and after the American Revolutionary period where "well regulated" is defined as "well controlled" or "well ordered" (as in the modern sense of regulated). Until such time as some one can produce writings from the period by the Constitutional framers where the "well stocked" definition is clearly and unambiguously attested when writing of militias, there is no evidence that "well stocked" or "in working order" was the sole definition intended by your 2nd Amendment.

The wording of "well regulated" is certainly open to interpretation. The meaning is ambiguous. It is entirely possible that your framers might have indeed meant "well controlled".

I once posted this argument in a previous gun thread and I was immediately attacked when I produced my citations. BraveNewCheneyWorld in particular declared that I didn't understand how English worked. Such insulting responses are generally what people fall back on when presented with evidence that not only contradicts their assertion, but outright destroys it. I have no interest in a continuing argument here on this particular topic. I will, however, post my citations if there is genuine interest.

/why yes, I do happen to own an OED
//not American so I'm not really invested in the argument anyway, I just take umbrage at the misuse of etymology
///slashies always come in threes
 
2013-11-07 01:32:55 PM

CtrlAltDestroy: I wonder if any of them actually take the time to think about where the criminals get their guns from in the first place. It's not like the magically appear out of thin air. They start as legal guns and things go wrong from there. It's almost like they're afraid of being responsible for their gun, personally.


Should we go ask Brian Terry's mother about this?
 
2013-11-07 01:34:02 PM

kapaso: The editor who penned the piece just lost his job.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/07/guns-and-ammo-bows-to-conserva ti ve-backlash-and-fires-editor-who-penned-pro-regulation-column/


Zumbo'd
 
2013-11-07 01:35:28 PM

sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.


"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?
 
2013-11-07 01:35:48 PM
Geez. It was his farking opinion. I wouldn't fire him over it.

/shrug
 
2013-11-07 01:36:39 PM

sprawl15: odinsposse: As well as the SKS mess in California at end of the 90s.

Which wasn't a confiscation.


I didn't mention anything about confiscation. It was, however, an instance where a previously legal gun was made illegal and owners were required to get rid of them. Again, it sounded like your argument was that because of Ex Post Facto that could not happen. That is clearly not the case.

It was people refusing to get their weapons registered

Also, no. It was that the state declared some guns legal and then later decided the correct interpretation of the law meant they were illegal. The whole point being that some guns could be registered and others could not. One gun model went from "can be registered" to "can't be registered" without any grandfathering in.

Let's take this out of gun law for a minute. K2 was briefly legal to own and use. It is now illegal. If you are found in possession of K2, even if you owned it before the ban, do you think you will be allowed to keep it?
 
2013-11-07 01:37:56 PM

sprawl15: but still not an example of what you're talking about:


He was talking about this law having no grandfather clause.  Besides your obvious deflection, It is exactly what he was talking about.
 
2013-11-07 01:39:08 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: And "tyrannical"?

*The Ghost of Vici Weaver  waves at you*


An FBI sniper broke the rules of engagement. He should have been tried for manslaughter, at the very least.
Randy Weaver was a fugitive under federal indictment, and the USMS was under orders to take him into custody.
None of this is tyranny.
 
2013-11-07 01:39:52 PM

kapaso: The editor who penned the piece just lost his job.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/07/guns-and-ammo-bows-to-conserva ti ve-backlash-and-fires-editor-who-penned-pro-regulation-column/


FTFA's Comments:

Once again proving that the Constitution consists of the 2nd Amendment, surrounded by a list of some suggestions.
 
2013-11-07 01:41:20 PM

Fark It: sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.

"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?


At some point people who had owned and operated horseless carriages for years had to acquire a driver's license. A safety course is so much less than and yet in your mind so much bigger a deal.
 
2013-11-07 01:43:25 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH

Randy Weaver was a fugitive under federal indictment...

Technically true, which is the best kind. The only reason he was in trouble with the government to begin with was refusing to turn on and help entrap people he didn't even agree with in the first place.

Some moral governance, there. "Work for us or go to jail (or have your family killed)." Upstanding.
 
2013-11-07 01:44:21 PM

Darth Macho: Fark It: sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.

"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?

At some point people who had owned and operated horseless carriages for years had to acquire a driver's license. A safety course is so much less than and yet in your mind so much bigger a deal.


I was talking about a gun ban without a grandfather clause.  And using public roads is a privilege, not a right.

Gun control advocates want mandatory safety training (with a fee of some kind, I presume).  What are they willing to put on the table for gun owners who already train and are knowledgeable when it comes to gun safety, who already have guns?  What do we get for the increased cost and hassle?  Easing up on NFA restrictions?  Repeal of the Hughes Amendment?
 
2013-11-07 01:45:17 PM

Mouldy Squid: It is entirely possible that [Y]our framers might have indeed meant "well controlled".

FTFE

Look    upthread.

(Or follow the links. Your choice.)
 
2013-11-07 01:45:48 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Geez. It was his farking opinion. I wouldn't fire him over it.

/shrug


His career in any type of journalism that has a right wing reader or viewership is over. I hope he was ready to hit the reset button.
 
2013-11-07 01:50:52 PM

dletter: As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway?  Why would they really need a cut & dry list?  There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.


First, there are around 300,000,000 firearms in the United States, but people don't tend to own just one. The number I've seen is just under half - about 47% of households have weapons. By the numbers: Guns in America, CNN So at best, without a list, "suspected gun houses" would mean going door-to-door. They'd have an almost 50% of being right.

Secondly, in light of the repeated lies the public has been told about the extent of NSA & other spying on regular citizens, with phone records, financial data, consumer data, etc., is it "paranoia" when gun owners assume that their firearm data will also be collected and possibly used against them?

The idea that the government goes to the trouble to collect data on millions of individuals, including who they call, what they buy, how much money they have in the bank and where it came from; what they check out of the library; which videos they watch; and who they are friends with on Facebook, but somehow doesn't care if they own a weapon is sort of silly. NSA Spying on Americans, The Electronic Frontier Foundation.

If, by "paranoia", you mean the idea that the government would try to collect all those firearms... in light of the repeated privacy revelations, I'm simply not sure what is reasonable to assume at this point.

I personally would be very much in favor of gun safety classes, but can't figure out how to make it happen. I grew up knowing not to touch my dad's rifle unless he was around, knowing not to put my finger on the trigger till it was time to shoot, not to point a weapon at anything I wasn't willing to destroy; and so on. I knew that if I had questions, I could ask and he'd show me the right/safe way to do things.

The bad thing now is that no one teaches that to kids anymore, and if they ever take up firearms as adults, they can develop terribly bad habits. Not all do, of course, but none should.
 
2013-11-07 01:51:40 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Geez. It was his farking opinion. I wouldn't fire him over it.


Then U.S. conservatism wants nothing to do with you. You either toe the line as its dictated to you or you GTFO, that's just how conservatives operate these days. Doesn't matter if you're a politico, media or a voter. You either fall in line and say what you're told to say and do what you're told to do or they want nothing to do with you.
 
2013-11-07 01:53:19 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?

That issue was settled decisively in favor of federal government on April 9, 1865. I, for one, do not particularly care for the idea of a "do-over" that might involve the use of nuclear weapons. Should that become the case while I am still capable of bearing arms, I will be one of those shooting the traitors who take up arms against the United States.
And "tyrannical"? Please identify any federal official who is suppressing your vote to the nearest US Attorney for prosecution.


You have no idea who Cornwallis is, do you?
 
2013-11-07 01:53:31 PM

netcentric: BMulligan: brownribbon: I'm not a teabagger and i don't want to compromise on any of my civil rights, including gun ownership.

That's simply not realistic. All constitutional rights are subject to limitations and balancing tests, and always have been since the birth of the Republic. It is hard to imagine how society would operate were our constitutional rights absolute and unbending.

What are you implying ?   You think people should 'bend' on womens rights or on the issue of slavery ?

Would you tell a person who is gay they can't get married or have a job because no ones rights are absolute ?    Sorry sir,  you are black,  we can't serve you any food....   ?

No,  I don't think we want that.


You realize, of course, that prior to enactment of the 13th Amendment, slavery was completely constitutional, as is denying gay and lesbian persons the right to marry even today. And of course, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

First Amendment rights are limited (think defamation, copyright, insider trading laws and so forth). Fourth Amendment rights are subject to numerous exceptions, and for much of American history, until the exclusionary rule came along, there was no remedy for violation anyway. Notions of due process as described in the 5th Amendment are and have always been dependent on a judicial determination of what process is due under the circumstances. Constitutional interpretation and application have always been imprecise and subject to balancing against other rights and policies. We can, and we should, have a vigorous public debate about how those lines are drawn, but every adult recognizes that they must be drawn somewhere. Slippery slope arguments are fun, but not very useful.
 
2013-11-07 01:53:35 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: An FBI sniper broke the rules of engagement


You know nothing about that incident then.  Not suprising.

The rules of engagement were changed during this standoff where anyone with a weapon could be shot on sight.  This arbitrarily suspeded all 4th amendment rights and was indeed tyranny.  Folks lost thier lives because of this.
 
2013-11-07 01:54:14 PM

Fark It: Darth Macho: Fark It: sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.

"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?

At some point people who had owned and operated horseless carriages for years had to acquire a driver's license. A safety course is so much less than and yet in your mind so much bigger a deal.

I was talking about a gun ban without a grandfather clause.  And using public roads is a privilege, not a right.

Gun control advocates want mandatory safety training (with a fee of some kind, I presume).  What are they willing to put on the table for gun owners who already train and are knowledgeable when it comes to gun safety, who already have guns?  What do we get for the increased cost and hassle?  Easing up on NFA restrictions?  Repeal of the Hughes Amendment?


You get safer gun owners and greater public acceptability with your hobby. Your community gets a back on the back and a spot on the moral high ground. We'll even throw in one free "get out of blame for the next mass shooting" coupon.

Wildly irresponsible gun handling has been a major problem in this country since we shifted towards urbanization. Frankly, the pro-gun side has racked up a debt on the social contract. Safety courses are a good first payment on that debt.

This isn't a negotiation; this a chance to politely pay the overdue bill before the repo man shows up.
 
2013-11-07 01:54:34 PM
skozlaw

Then U.S. conservatism wants nothing to do with you.

[imokwiththis.jpg]
 
2013-11-07 01:54:40 PM

Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Randy Weaver was a fugitive under federal indictment...

Technically true, which is the best kind. The only reason he was in trouble with the government to begin with was refusing to turn on and help entrap people he didn't even agree with in the first place.

Some moral governance, there. "Work for us or go to jail (or have your family killed)." Upstanding.


Wait.
One.
Minute.
There.
He was under indictment for what, again? The US Marshall Service spent more than a year trying to get him to turn himself in peacefully. The Weaver family responded to visits by occupying fighting positions.
And they wanted him to inform on what group, again?
 
2013-11-07 01:54:43 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: An FBI sniper broke the rules of engagement

You know nothing about that incident then.  Not suprising.

The rules of engagement were changed during this standoff where anyone with a weapon could be shot on sight.  This arbitrarily suspeded all 4th amendment rights and was indeed tyranny.  Folks lost thier lives because of this.


And she wasn't even holding a weapon, only an infant.
 
2013-11-07 01:54:52 PM
er back pat on the back
 
2013-11-07 01:55:35 PM

Facetious_Speciest: The only reason he was in trouble with the government to begin with was refusing to turn on and help entrap people he didn't even agree with in the first place.


Yep and never mind the fact that they changed his court date without telling him or anyone else so that he couldn't have shown up, even if he had wanted to.
 
2013-11-07 01:57:42 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: The US Marshall Service spent more than a year trying to get him to turn himself in peacefully.


By trying to blackmail him up front, they sure went about that process in an awkward manner.  Way to show someone you work on the up-and-up.
 
2013-11-07 01:58:17 PM

factoryconnection: dittybopper: Except that they won't: The reason driving deaths were trending down like that was the economic crash in 2007/2008. Fewer people working and taking vacations means fewer people on the road, which means fewer accidents.

Driving death rates have been falling consistently because of safety regulations over the years.  Driving in the 60s was perilously dangerous and the cars themselves made it much more so.  Cars nowadays are vastly safer and thus people survive even unhurt accidents that would have killed them.  I wonder what drove the safety culture?

Of course, violent crime has dropped over the past 20 years and with it gun murders which is more and more thought to be tied to the rise and fall of environmental lead exposure to children from the 50s through the late 70s.  Fewer people with prefrontal cortex developmental problems, fewer people going apesh*t crazy and killing people.


There are signs that the number of motor vehicle fatalities have begun to climb in the last 2 years with the economic recovery.

news.onlineautoinsurance.com


ibis.health.state.nm.us

dps.mn.gov


The talking point about "guns poised to cause more deaths than cars by 2015 (or whatever)" was based upon extrapolating the steep decline in traffic fatalities due to fewer miles driven because of the recession, a temporary situation that wasn't going to last.
 
2013-11-07 01:58:41 PM

Darth Macho: You get safer gun owners and greater public acceptability with your hobby. Your community gets a back on the back and a spot on the moral high ground. We'll even throw in one free "get out of blame for the next mass shooting" coupon.


We already have NRA courses, hunter safety courses, concealed carry courses.  If they're a requirement for the "privilege" of owning a gun do we get credit for past courses?  Do we get tax credits for these courses?

Wildly irresponsible gun handling has been a major problem in this country since we shifted towards urbanization.

I am in no way, shape, or form for irresponsible and criminal gun users in America's ghettos.

Frankly, the pro-gun side has racked up a debt on the social contract. Safety courses are a good first payment on that debt.

So, this is a punitive measure, and only the beginning.  And you call us paranoid....

This isn't a negotiation; this a chance to politely pay the overdue bill before the repo man shows up.

Thanks for tipping your hand and being honest about your true intentions.
 
2013-11-07 02:00:09 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: And they wanted him to inform on what group, again?


They wanted him to infiltrate the Aryan Nations and he refused.  So they blackmailed him in order to get him to comply or to go to jail.  Not tyrannical at all.
 
2013-11-07 02:00:15 PM

Fark It: form for


form *responsible for
 
2013-11-07 02:00:45 PM

sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.


Note section g.:

g. Within thirty days of the effective date of rules promulgated by
the commissioner pursuant to subparagraph 7 of paragraph a of
subdivision 16 of section 10-301, the commissioner shall send by regular
mail to every person who has been issued a permit to possess a rifle or
shotgun and whose rifle or shotgun the commissioner reasonably believes
to be an assault weapon as defined in subdivision 16 of section 10-301
or as defined in such rules, a written notice setting forth the
requirements and procedures relating to the disposition of such weapons,
and the criminal and civil penalties that may be imposed upon the
permittee for unlawful possession or disposition of such weapons.
Failure by the commissioner to send, or the permittee to receive, such
notice, shall not excuse such permittee for unlawful possession or
disposition of such weapons.


The law explicitly allows use of the state registration system to notify owners of banned firearms that they may no longer possess those firearms.
 
2013-11-07 02:01:26 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH

Are you joking for some reason?
 
2013-11-07 02:02:20 PM

sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.


You are saying, then, that a federal firearm ban without a grandfather clause would not qualify as a confiscation measure, because owners could move those firearms out of the country?
 
2013-11-07 02:04:38 PM

Darth Macho: Fark It: sprawl15: sprawl15: Dimensio: I have located the specific text of the law in question.

Good lord (d.) is worded badly. Digging through it.

Shiatty law, but still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city. And it has farkall to do with registrations or lists of gun owners or door to door confiscation or any of the other stuff we're talking about.

"You are no longer legally allowed to own this piece of property that you until today was legal to own.  We know where you live.  The penalty for non-compliance is severe."

Why am I not surprised that gun control advocates find this acceptable?

At some point people who had owned and operated horseless carriages for years had to acquire a driver's license. A safety course is so much less than and yet in your mind so much bigger a deal.


What state or federal law forced horseless carriage owners to surrender their property?
 
2013-11-07 02:07:37 PM
skozlaw:I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.

Hunter safety is now mandated in many states. Many states have reciprocal permits, so if you have a valid hunter safety permit in one state, you can hunt in another. If you don't have one from your own state, you can't hunt in other states. Here's a pretty up-to-date list of requirements. Hunter Education Requirements in the United States and Canada, Texas Parks and Wildlife.

The number of hunter fatalities dropped precipitously when hunter safety was mandated. Most everyone is fine with this because hunting isn't a right, and having a hunter safety card proves nothing with regard to gun ownership.
 
2013-11-07 02:10:26 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mouldy Squid: It is entirely possible that [Y]our framers might have indeed meant "well controlled".FTFE

Look    upthread.

(Or follow the links. Your choice.)


See, everyone. This is how you supply evidence as to the particular interpretation of an ambiguous phrase in a historical document. Outright assertion and misquoting the OED only makes you look like an buffoon. demaL-demaL-yeH has shown evidence that the government of the Revolutionary period did, in fact, use the term "well regulated" in the modern sense of "ordered" or "controlled". While the wording in the 2nd Amendment remains ambiguous, it is clear that the modern definition was used in documents of the time concerning militias. The evidence is sound and it is more than likely that the framers intended that "well regulated" meant some variation of "ordered" or "controlled" when they wrote "well regulated".
 
2013-11-07 02:15:53 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: demaL-demaL-yeH: Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?

That issue was settled decisively in favor of federal government on April 9, 1865. I, for one, do not particularly care for the idea of a "do-over" that might involve the use of nuclear weapons. Should that become the case while I am still capable of bearing arms, I will be one of those shooting the traitors who take up arms against the United States.
And "tyrannical"? Please identify any federal official who is suppressing your vote to the nearest US Attorney for prosecution.

You have no idea who Cornwallis is, do you?


You have no idea who Grant and Sherman were, do you?

(And about Yorktown: The 8,500 American troops were "supplemented" by 10,500 French troops. Virginia supplied three brigades plus six companies under Dabney. The other six brigades and five regiments were Yankees.)
 
2013-11-07 02:16:16 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?


It probably would have worked out pretty badly for the dirt farmers if Britain's major enemy, France, hadn't been supporting and supplying them with arms from the beginning and then entered the war openly on their side.
 
2013-11-07 02:19:03 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Randy Weaver was a fugitive under federal indictment...

Technically true, which is the best kind. The only reason he was in trouble with the government to begin with was refusing to turn on and help entrap people he didn't even agree with in the first place.

Some moral governance, there. "Work for us or go to jail (or have your family killed)." Upstanding.

Wait.
One.
Minute.
There.
He was under indictment for what, again? The US Marshall Service spent more than a year trying to get him to turn himself in peacefully. The Weaver family responded to visits by occupying fighting positions.
And they wanted him to inform on what group, again?



He was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of his peers under the original indictment, making an illegal firearm (to whit, a sawed-off shotgun).   That lends credence to his story that the guns he sold to the ATF informant were legal when he sold them, and subsequently shortened by the ATF.
 
2013-11-07 02:23:02 PM

HotWingConspiracy: skozlaw: Elegy: Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.

Or maybe you could call them what they really are: "people who are smart enough to know that it doesn't make sense to mandate classes about your chosen hobby".

I don't know if it's still the case or not, but hunting safety, which included gun safety, were common extra-curricular options for people interested in those hobbies when I was in school and, since that makes perfect sense, unlike your idea, virtually nobody is opposed to them.

It's also nice that people from a political camp that endlessly sucks money out of school budgets will somehow agree to funding this.

It's the same with their bullshiat smoke screen about wanting better mental health services. Ask them how they want to pay for it.


Had a meeting I had to attend, so unfortunately I didn't get to put in a reply to either of you. Still gonna do it late though.

First: on hobby status. Gun ownership is not a hobby. It's a constitutional right. We have civics courses to teach why voting and democratic governance are important and how they work. We have history courses to teach why the 14th amendment is important. We should have the same for guns.

Like it or not, guns, and the right to bear arms, are both part of American culture and governance. The right for every american to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution, and guns are everywhere - not only in movies and TV but literally, physically, everywhere in society. Teaching responsibility at a young age is a good way to deal with that fact, and a good way to help prevent accidental firearms deaths.

Second: funding such a program is easy. Take the costs of the program an multiply by 3 for a grand total. 1/3 of the grand total actually funds the program. 2/3 of the grand total goes into general education. Conservatives love it because it teaches the principles of gun ownership early; liberals love it because schools get more money. Supplies can be solicited through buy-back programs and donations to keep costs down; I'm sure the gun manufacturers would be all over it for the PR.

As I said, though, gun control advocates would never, ever support such responsible legislation. Such an educational program would demystify the gun from a totemic object of abstract societal horror and turn it into what it actually is: a rather prosaic inanimate object that is only as "good" or as "bad" as the person holding it.
 
2013-11-07 02:26:57 PM

dittybopper: He was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of his peers under the original indictment, making an illegal firearm (to whit, a sawed-off shotgun).   That lends credence to his story that the guns he sold to the ATF informant were legal when he sold them, and subsequently shortened by the ATF.


Which made him no less a belligerent fugitive who was in an armed standoff with the US Marshall Service for more than a year. He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.
 
2013-11-07 02:29:12 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.


Did you miss the part where they moved his court date and never told him?  Or are you just being obtuse for some other reason.
 
2013-11-07 02:31:11 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH

Which made him no less a belligerent fugitive who was in an armed standoff with the US Marshall Service for more than a year. He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.

Well, ok. I guess you're not joking.

Which day was his day in court, again?

Your callous disregard of the murder of a woman holding a child is disgusting. Just...wow. What ideology have you sold yourself to that says such action is acceptable? What is fundamentally wrong with you as a person that you think this was ok?
 
2013-11-07 02:32:40 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary


Yep, because when you have been blackmailed by the ATF, court date moved without any notification, and harassed by jack booted thugs working for the goverment because you didn't want to deal with them, you are going to put all your faith into the court system.

Are you that dumb, or just play one on the internet?
 
2013-11-07 02:33:07 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.


You are statist trash.  His wife was murdered while holding onto a child because the government didn't tell him they changed his court date.  He was found not guilty.  The victims sued the Justice Department, and won.  His family was targeted because he refused to become an informant.
 
2013-11-07 02:33:14 PM

Elegy: Like it or not, guns, and the right to bear arms, are both part of American culture and governance. The right for every american to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution


So far so good.
Now talk about the responsibility that goes with it: The responsibility of every American to take up arms in defense of the United States is not enshrined in the Constitution. The responsibility to do so as a member of a well regulated militia, however, is, along with the Enumerated Powers of Congress to regulate the Militia.
 
2013-11-07 02:35:22 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.

Did you miss the part where they moved his court date and never told him?  Or are you just being obtuse for some other reason.


No, I didn't. Did you miss the part where the US Marshall Service spent for  more than a year after that date trying to get him to surrender peacefully?
 
2013-11-07 02:36:32 PM

Skeptos: Lt. Cheese Weasel: blastoh: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

It's funny of course because Cornwallis had the same cynical 'you must be kidding' attitude about a bunch of dirt farmers in South Carolina and Virginia.  How'd that one work out?

It probably would have worked out pretty badly for the dirt farmers if Britain's major enemy, France, hadn't been supporting and supplying them with arms from the beginning and then entered the war openly on their side.


My whole point was, Cornwallis was deeply hurt, harrassed by a bunch of dirt farmers (militia) and eventually defeated once forced to flee north to Yorktown.  His disdain for militia is the same disdain noted above that US Marines would have for a bunch of fat rednecks with AR-15s.  Simply making a parallel comparison.  Tanks and choppers not particularly effective vs an insurgency.

Military superiority does not always equate to victory on the battlefield when faced with a determined insurgency with a taste for battle and a will to see it through. This lesson is taught over and over.
 
2013-11-07 02:36:50 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Elegy: Like it or not, guns, and the right to bear arms, are both part of American culture and governance. The right for every american to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution

So far so good.
Now talk about the responsibility that goes with it: The responsibility of every American to take up arms in defense of the United States is not enshrined in the Constitution. The responsibility to do so as a member of a well regulated militia, however, is, along with the Enumerated Powers of Congress to regulate the Militia.


And what part of mandatory firearms training for every middle schooler in America violates the "well regulated" provision?
 
2013-11-07 02:37:04 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Did you miss the part where the US Marshall Service spent for more than a year after that date trying to get him to surrender peacefully?


Yep, he didn't get over it.  I don't blame him in this regard.
 
2013-11-07 02:41:50 PM

Elegy: demaL-demaL-yeH: Elegy: Like it or not, guns, and the right to bear arms, are both part of American culture and governance. The right for every american to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution

So far so good.
Now talk about the responsibility that goes with it: The responsibility of every American to take up arms in defense of the United States is not enshrined in the Constitution. The responsibility to do so as a member of a well regulated militia, however, is, along with the Enumerated Powers of Congress to regulate the Militia.

And what part of mandatory firearms training for every middle schooler in America violates the "well regulated" provision?


None. Until Newt's Nimrods privatized the Army-run CMP, it was part and parcel of schooling.
/With annual refreshers.
//I am old.
 
2013-11-07 02:42:01 PM

Fark It: The victims sued the Justice Department, and won.


Actaully, to be accurate here, the Goverment settled for millions.  The last thing that the goverment wanted was all of thier dirty laundry being aired on National TV.  They knew exactly how bad they had screwed up.
 
2013-11-07 02:44:02 PM

HeadLever: Fark It: The victims sued the Justice Department, and won.

Actaully, to be accurate here, the Goverment settled for millions.  The last thing that the goverment wanted was all of thier dirty laundry being aired on National TV.  They knew exactly how bad they had screwed up.


When the plaintiffs force a settlement, especially against the government, I count that as a W.  Especially given that federal agents were killed in self-defense, and the Justice Department said that there was "no way" they were going to give money to people who shot federal agents.
 
2013-11-07 02:46:04 PM

odinsposse: I didn't mention anything about confiscation.


so are you just unaware of how conversation works

odinsposse: It was, however, an instance where a previously legal gun was made illegal and owners were required to get rid of them.


And again, that is not the case. The previously legal gun was kept legal. The owners just had to file for registration to comply with the grandfather provisions. There were a series of extensions on the due date and the last extension was cancelled by the courts because they said enough was enough. If you owned a relevant SKS in California at the time, you could keep it if you weren't a lazy POS.

HeadLever: He was talking about this law having no grandfather clause.


He was specifically talking about "confiscation efforts [that have] have demonstrably occurred" and used such as an example.

Dimensio: The law explicitly allows use of the state registration system to notify owners of banned firearms that they may no longer possess those firearms.


I saw. As I said, shiatty law. And, as I said, not an example of a demonstrable occurrence of confiscation efforts. You'd be better off with New Orleans as an example, recent court cases aside.

Dimensio: You are saying, then, that a federal firearm ban without a grandfather clause would not qualify as a confiscation measure, because owners could move those firearms out of the country?


You're making an assumption here. A federal firearm ban without a grandfather clause would not allow for movement of firearms out of the country by default, any more than you'd be allowed to just leave the country if they catch you with a key of coke. And that would violate ex post facto constitutional rights. And, in that context, yes, I would say that "confiscation" is kind of a key part to a "confiscation".

If you want to talk about "shiatty laws" we can talk about that instead, but you are simply shifting the goalpost. You made a claim of demonstrable occurrences of confiscation and have yet to provide one that meets your own standard of "mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date." While "mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them or move them out of a city prior to that date" is certainly close, and certainly a farking horrible and questionable law, it doesn't meet your stated standard.

But sadly it doesn't really matter that you haven't provided a demonstrable occurrence of confiscation mandating that current owners of firearms destroy or surrender them prior to a specific date, because you still commit a fundamental logical fallacy. Again, (P ⇒ Q) ⇔ (non-Q ⇒ non-P).

demaL-demaL-yeH: The responsibility to do so as a member of a well regulated militia, however, is, along with the Enumerated Powers of Congress to regulate the Militia.


Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2nd ties firearm ownership to a militia, what is your reading of the 9th regarding an individual right to own a firearm?
 
2013-11-07 02:51:21 PM

Fark It: I count that as a W.


Yeah, can't argue with that.  It is a W in every way but the technical sense.
 
2013-11-07 02:56:07 PM
HeadLever

The last thing that the goverment wanted was all of thier dirty laundry being aired on National TV. They knew exactly how bad they had screwed up.

They really did. Consider: the FBI's DAD sent out a freaking memo to the department saying that the charges against Weaver were bullshiat (his words, not mine), and he had a strong legal position. This was during the government siege.

Of course, there will always be people who suggest shooting a kid in the back and a woman in the face as she holds a baby is justified. Just look at demaL-demaL-yeH. Hey, their father or husband didn't show up to court on the date no one told him about after they changed it more than once. Time to pay with blood.
 
2013-11-07 02:57:42 PM

sprawl15: Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2nd ties firearm ownership to a militia, what is your reading of the 9th regarding an individual right to own a firearm?


Any claim that it is an absolute, unlimited right is plain wrong: Heller explicitly says so on page 54.
As always with constitutional questions, it's wise to look at the implementing laws and at rulings on laws that specifically forbid bearing or possessing arms (mental illness, domestic abuse convictions, and felon status being chief among them).
 
2013-11-07 02:58:54 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Any claim that it is an absolute, unlimited right is plain wrong


Not what I'm asking, nor what I'm asserting.

It's a very straightforward question. Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2nd ties firearm ownership to a militia, what is your reading of the 9th regarding an individual right to own a firearm?
 
2013-11-07 03:03:42 PM

dletter: RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway?  Why would they really need a cut & dry list?  There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.


Supposedly the UK started out with "we're just registering them, not confiscating them" then progressed to "OK, now we're confiscating them" once they had a convenient list.
 
2013-11-07 03:05:36 PM

Facetious_Speciest: HeadLever

The last thing that the goverment wanted was all of thier dirty laundry being aired on National TV. They knew exactly how bad they had screwed up.

They really did. Consider: the FBI's DAD sent out a freaking memo to the department saying that the charges against Weaver were bullshiat (his words, not mine), and he had a strong legal position. This was during the government siege.

Of course, there will always be people who suggest shooting a kid in the back and a woman in the face as she holds a baby is justified. Just look at demaL-demaL-yeH. Hey, their father or husband didn't show up to court on the date no one told him about after they changed it more than once. Time to pay with blood.


That is a lie:

demaL-demaL-yeH: An FBI sniper broke the rules of engagement. He should have been tried for manslaughter, at the very least.


For more than a year, he engaged in an armed standoff while the Marshal Service tried to get him to go to court. When they approached, his family took up fighting positions. The marshals had valid warrants for his arrest, and one of them had been shot dead the day before. You don't have a right to not comply with a warrant.
 
2013-11-07 03:07:00 PM

sprawl15: odinsposse: It was, however, an instance where a previously legal gun was made illegal and owners were required to get rid of them.

And again, that is not the case. The previously legal gun was kept legal. The owners just had to file for registration to comply with the grandfather provisions. There were a series of extensions on the due date and the last extension was cancelled by the courts because they said enough was enough. If you owned a relevant SKS in California at the time, you could keep it if you weren't a lazy POS.


Here is the relevant law and here's the relevant portion from the summary:

The bill would require the department to notify all district attorneys of the provisions of this bill, on or before January 31, 1999, and would make it a misdemeanor or a felony for any person, firm, company, or corporation in possession of an existing SKS rifle to fail to relinquish or dispose of the rifle on or before January 1, 2000. The bill would also require the department to purchase any SKS rifle relinquished pursuant to these provisions from funds appropriated for this purpose by future legislation, and to adopt regulations, including emergency regulations, for the purchase program. By creating a new offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

No mention of being able to register them again. Maybe you're thinking of some later law?
 
2013-11-07 03:07:40 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Please identify any federal official who is suppressing your vote to the nearest US Attorney for prosecution.


Voter supression is a state function.
 
2013-11-07 03:09:19 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH

No, it's not a lie. You know very little about the event we're discussing. You didn't even know the government tried to blackmail him beforehand. Your idea that his son and wife should "pay in blood" is disgusting.

You are a bad person, and should feel bad.
 
2013-11-07 03:12:04 PM

sprawl15: demaL-demaL-yeH: Any claim that it is an absolute, unlimited right is plain wrong

Not what I'm asking, nor what I'm asserting.

It's a very straightforward question. Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2nd ties firearm ownership to a militia, what is your reading of the 9th regarding an individual right to own a firearm?


What the hell does the ninth have to do with anything?
Congress has broad Enumerated Militia Powers, including the power to make every Swinging Richard and Whistling Wendy a lifetime member of the Milita: If they tell you that you must own a poleaxe, you must own a poleaxe. If they decree that your artillery must be secured in the local Militia armory, your artillery will be stored there.
 
2013-11-07 03:14:29 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: The marshals had valid warrants for his arrest, and one of them had been shot dead the day before. You don't have a right to not comply with a warrant.


Yep, because when you have been blackmailed, court date changed without your nofication and one of you kids and dog killed by the feds, complying with a warrent is exactly the highest priority you should have.  Are you starting to get it yet that maybe Weaver did not trust these folks too much?
 
2013-11-07 03:15:40 PM

Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

No, it's not a lie. You know very little about the event we're discussing. You didn't even know the government tried to blackmail him beforehand. Your idea that his son and wife should "pay in blood" is disgusting.

You are a bad person, and should feel bad.


The lie was about me. You didn't just distort or misrepresent what I wrote, you deliberately, and with malice aforethought, flat-out lied.
 
2013-11-07 03:16:38 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: That is a lie:
demaL-demaL-yeH: An FBI sniper broke the rules of engagement.


Again, that is a lie.  Not sure why you keep trying to pass it off as truth.
 
2013-11-07 03:21:48 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH

The lie was about me. You didn't just distort or misrepresent what I wrote, you deliberately, and with malice aforethought, flat-out lied.

This is incorrect. Not surprised.

"He could have had his day in court [that he didn't know about] and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law."

HURR DURR, if you don't cooperate with our blackmailing and then miss the court date we didn't tell you about, your family pays in blood!

Classy.
 
2013-11-07 03:25:31 PM

Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government.  As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.


Any one who thinks this is how it would go down is just plain stupid. No one can go toe to toe with the US military. Ideally, it would be death by a thousand cuts. They have been having lots of fun gathering experience fighting insurgencies in a couple of relatively small countries lately, though. Either way, there is no way you would be able to effectively occupy the entire USA under marshall law without vast tracts of unpoliced areas.
 
2013-11-07 03:27:40 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: The marshals had valid warrants for his arrest, and one of them had been shot dead the day before. You don't have a right to not comply with a warrant.

Yep, because when you have been blackmailed, court date changed without your nofication and one of you kids and dog killed by the feds, complying with a warrent is exactly the highest priority you should have.  Are you starting to get it yet that maybe Weaver did not trust these folks too much?


More than a year. He was given more than a year to comply with the warrant and surrender to federal marshals so he could have his day in court. Instead, when the marshals showed up with a valid warrant, he sent his family to occupy fighting positions. He did not lawyer up. He did not ever respond to the attorney who was appointed to defend him. He did not go to court to face his accusers.

For a third time, the FBI sniper effed up.

I personally find the new habit of cops playing dress-up pretend soldier and acting like thugs both disgusting and stupid. A cop walking up to the door dressed like a cop and telling him "This warrant says I have to take you in front of the judge. I'll notify your lawyer so you'll have representation. Let's go and try to clear this up quickly." is far more effective and far less likely to end in violence.
 
2013-11-07 03:28:01 PM

Zeno-25: Any one who thinks this is how it would go down is just plain stupid. No one can go toe to toe with the US military. Ideally, it would be death by a thousand cuts. They have been having lots of fun gathering experience fighting insurgencies in a couple of relatively small countries lately, though. Either way, there is no way you would be able to effectively occupy the entire USA under marshall law without vast tracts of unpoliced areas.


And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.
 
2013-11-07 03:29:00 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: That is a lie:
demaL-demaL-yeH: An FBI sniper broke the rules of engagement.

Again, that is a lie.  Not sure why you keep trying to pass it off as truth.


Then why did he go on trial for manslaughter?
 
2013-11-07 03:30:15 PM

HeadLever: Zeno-25: Any one who thinks this is how it would go down is just plain stupid. No one can go toe to toe with the US military. Ideally, it would be death by a thousand cuts. They have been having lots of fun gathering experience fighting insurgencies in a couple of relatively small countries lately, though. Either way, there is no way you would be able to effectively occupy the entire USA under marshall law without vast tracts of unpoliced areas.

And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.


*snerk* I strongly urge you not to test your hypothesis, traitor.
 
2013-11-07 03:30:51 PM
The really farked up part, demaL-demaL-yeH, is that you're arguing on behalf on the government years after they all but admitted they were wrong by settling. With the information that came out since (see the FBI memo, mentioned above), why would you continue doing so?

It was wrong to kill Sam and Vicki Weaver. Stop defending it. The majority of the agents there thought the RoE you're saying Horiuchi merely "violated" were bullshiat to begin with.

I honestly think if you learned about the incident instead of trying to blindly defend yourself, you'd eventually...to yourself, not to me...admit you were wrong.

You are misinformed or, honestly, a crazy.
 
2013-11-07 03:35:44 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: He was given more than a year to comply with the warrant and surrender to federal marshals so he could have his day in court.


Did you miss that part about him not wanting to go to court since the goverment has already shown to be crooked?

Let's go and try to clear this up quickly."

I am pretty sure that he considered 'clearning it up quickly' was a very unlikely event.  Why should he assume the courts and prosecution to be any less crooked than what he experienced beforehand.
 
2013-11-07 03:36:06 PM

Zeno-25: Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government.  As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

Any one who thinks this is how it would go down is just plain stupid. No one can go toe to toe with the US military. Ideally, it would be death by a thousand cuts. They have been having lots of fun gathering experience fighting insurgencies in a couple of relatively small countries lately, though. Either way, there is no way you would be able to effectively occupy the entire USA under marshall law without vast tracts of unpoliced areas.


Then presumably it would make little difference if the "insurgents" only had shotguns and hunting rifles.
 
2013-11-07 03:38:54 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Then why did he go on trial for manslaughter?


He didn't, moron.  Lon was indicted, but the case was dropped.
 
2013-11-07 03:40:31 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: *snerk* I strongly urge you not to test your hypothesis, traitor.


Why would my hypothetical argument have anything to do with treason?  Is your reading comprehension really that bad?
 
2013-11-07 03:48:50 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: Then why did he go on trial for manslaughter?

He didn't, moron.  Lon was indicted, but the case was dropped.


Fair enough. He should have gone on trial.
Now let's get the fark out of this ridiculous Ruby Ridge threadjack.

Taking up arms against the United States is treason. (Article III, Section 3, Constitution of the United States of America.)
You keep talking about the coming civil war and how the plucky rebels will win against the federal government in a way that tells everybody reading your comments that you consider yourself one of the plucky rebels taking up arms against the United States. You are also, judging by your comments, a strong advocate of sowing dissension among the ranks. So pick up a mirror and look at the shiny side: That monkey there is a traitor, in word, if not yet in deed.
 
2013-11-07 03:49:49 PM

Trail of Dead: dletter: RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway?  Why would they really need a cut & dry list?  There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.

You need to rewatch Red Dawn.


Now THERE'S a movie with a BAFFLING message/tone. I'd call it even-handed, but it swings SO hard that it comes off more are fractured.
 
2013-11-07 03:56:31 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH

Taking up arms against the United States is treason.

Taking up arms against the British Crown was treason.

Point?
 
2013-11-07 03:58:22 PM

Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Taking up arms against the United States is treason.

Taking up arms against the British Crown was treason.

Point?


A good chunk of Fark thinks that the founding fathers were just tax-dodging slave owners who had no right to break away from Britain after it saved America's ass from the Indians and the French.
 
2013-11-07 03:59:02 PM

odinsposse: No mention of being able to register them again. Maybe you're thinking of some later law?


The thing you're citing is the later law. The assault weapons ban was in...89, if I remember right. It banned specifically any SKS models that accepted a detachable magazine, but allowed grandfathering as long as you registered them with the state. Other models of SKS did not have a detachable magazine and those weren't considered assault weapons. However, there were both kits made/sold to allow conversion to a detachable magazine after the fact and in '92 the Cali AG decided to allow the sale of certain Norinco SKS Sporter models that had detachable mags.

The dissonance between what the law actually said and what the AG allowed to occur caused all kinds of issues, including arrests of people who didn't have a detachable magazine on their weapon. That went up to the courts, who said the AG was a farking idiot and shouldn't have let that happen and that all of those guns were assault weapons. This was followed by a series of amnesty periods where one could register their firearms after the fact (covering them under § 12285), which also were put to an end by the courts. Then there was this law that you linked which gave blanket temporary amnesty and something like double or triple the money back (seriously, they were like $100 guns and the buyback was for $230) to those who purchased specifically the Chinese SKS models in the window that the Cali AG dipshiat decided to illegally allow to be sold. People could also keep their weapons even at this point by modifying them back, adding a bullet button, etc., in ways that made the weapon no longer have a functional detachable magazine. That's why the law you linked specifically states:
an "SKS rifle" under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47 magazine and imported into this state and sold by a licensed gun dealer, or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997.
 in regard to an assault weapons ban that took effect in '89.
 
2013-11-07 04:00:32 PM
super_grass

A good chunk of Fark thinks that the founding fathers were just tax-dodging slave owners who had no right to break away from Britain after it saved America's ass from the Indians and the French.

Oh, lawd.
 
2013-11-07 04:03:20 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: What the hell does the ninth have to do with anything?


It changes the nature of your assumptions. A proper reading of the 9th would make you ask "what the hell does the language of the 2nd have to do with anything?" If the 2nd is strictly read to only mean that you're allowed to carry arms while in an official state militia, that doesn't deny or disparage the individual right to bear arms.

That's the problem with the bill of rights. If the 1st Amendment was repealed, right now, you would still have a right to free speech that must be protected by the government, because the existence of the amendment is irrelevant.
 
2013-11-07 04:05:18 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH:You are also, judging by your comments, a strong advocate of sowing dissension among the ranks.

No.  We are simply stating a fact:  if a hypothetical second Civil War were to occur, the military would likely be split between those willing to support the government and those willing to support the rebels, just like the last time it happened and just like every single other civil war in history.  A civil war isn't an isolated event, it means a country divided against itself.  The military isn't exempt from that.

/And per your Grant and Sherman comment:  The Federal Army was mostly militia then, too.  Or did you forget about when Lincoln called up the first wave of 75,000 militia volunteers in 1861?  Or just how small the regular Army was before the Civil War?
 
2013-11-07 04:06:27 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: He was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of his peers under the original indictment, making an illegal firearm (to whit, a sawed-off shotgun).   That lends credence to his story that the guns he sold to the ATF informant were legal when he sold them, and subsequently shortened by the ATF.

Which made him no less a belligerent fugitive who was in an armed standoff with the US Marshall Service for more than a year. He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.


Ah, but he had reason to not trust the system.  He didn't think he'd get a fair shake, if they were setting him up like that.  He moved to that area to get away from that sort of thing, and it came to him.

And it doesn't help that they gave him the wrong information about his court date, telling him in a letter that it was a month after the actual date, and then deciding not to wait until that date to see if he showed up before going after him.
 
2013-11-07 04:07:36 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Taking up arms against the United States is treason. (Article III, Section 3, Constitution of the United States of America.)


But what happens when the country no longer adhers to the consitution, a.k.a going off the rails?  If they no longer go by the constitution, why should we?
 
2013-11-07 04:08:44 PM

sprawl15: And, as I said, not an example of a demonstrable occurrence of confiscation efforts.


It is, however, a demonstration of a law prohibiting current owners of existing firearms from keeping those firearms after the effective date of the law despite the "ex post facto" prohibition clause in the United States Constitution, as I stated and as you disputed.
 
2013-11-07 04:08:51 PM
That didn't take long.

fired
 
2013-11-07 04:10:04 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: For a third time, the FBI sniper effed up.


By following the RoE?  Lon did exactly what any jackboot thug would do - Followed the corrupted RoE to a tee.  There was no effing up.
 
2013-11-07 04:11:05 PM
He wants to drop the Ruby Ridge thing. Let him. I am.
 
2013-11-07 04:16:41 PM

Dimensio: a demonstration of a law prohibiting current owners of existing firearms from keeping those firearms after the effective date of the law


It does no such thing, unless you are suggesting that the definition of "keep" does not include ownership of property outside of your current city limits. And, again:

sprawl15: You're making an assumption here. A federal firearm ban without a grandfather clause would not allow for movement of firearms out of the country by default, any more than you'd be allowed to just leave the country if they catch you with a key of coke. And that would violate ex post facto constitutional rights. And, in that context, yes, I would say that "confiscation" is kind of a key part to a "confiscation".

If you want to talk about "shiatty laws" we can talk about that instead, but you are simply shifting the goalpost. You made a claim of demonstrable occurrences of confiscation and have yet to provide one that meets your own standard of "mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date." While "mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them or move them out of a city prior to that date" is certainly close, and certainly a farking horrible and questionable law, it doesn't meet your stated standard.

But sadly it doesn't really matter that you haven't provided a demonstrable occurrence of confiscation mandating that current owners of firearms destroy or surrender them prior to a specific date, because you still commit a fundamental logical fallacy. Again, (P ⇒ Q) ⇔ (non-Q ⇒ non-P).

If you want to move the goalposts now, that's fine. Just be clear that's what you're doing and be clear about where you're moving them to and be clear that you're acknowledging your initial complaints are based on false assumptions and arguments.

Specifically, be clear that a door-to-door confiscation effort driven by a central list of all gun owners and the types of gun they own is not, in fact, plausible due (in addition to the reasons listed that you did not address) to the lack of any demonstrable occurrence of confiscation mandating that current owners of firearms destroy or surrender them prior to a specific date.
 
2013-11-07 04:20:22 PM
Oh yeah, Rube-y Ridge. The rare occurrence we should be basing policy on as opposed to those rare mass shootings we shouldn't be basing policy on.
 
2013-11-07 04:22:17 PM
 

Facetious_Speciest: demaL-demaL-yeH

Taking up arms against the United States is treason.

Taking up arms against the British Crown was treason.

Point?


Among my ancestors were two militia members (father and son) who were murdered by a group of Tories who took them prisoner.
Also among my ancestors were men who fought for the Confederacy.
They willingly paid the price of treason.

Also among my ancestors are men who fought to preserve the United States and succeeded.
For my part, and for the sake of my family and the constitutional rule of law, I would take up arms again to defend the United States.

Nothing the neocon(federate)s are saying would induce me to take their side:
Like the South in 1860, their cause is corrupt;
their motives are greed and power;
their goals -
  the institution of a corporatist theocracy,
  the enslavement of women to fetuses,
  the economic enslavement of workers,
  making our children ignorant,
  the denial and curtailment of basic human rights,
  and the destruction of our government and undoing of its every positive, decent accomplishment;
and their methods attack the very structure of civil society and divide us.

They are the embodiment of all that is ignoble, brutish and selfish in our culture.

The point: If you take up arms against the United States while I am still capable of bearing arms, I will take up arms against you.
 
2013-11-07 04:23:10 PM
Nina_Hartley's_Ass

Oh yeah, Rube-y Ridge. The rare occurrence we should be basing policy on as opposed to those rare mass shootings we shouldn't be basing policy on.

What do you imagine you're trying to say, here? The only policy anyone wants out of Ruby Ridge is "hey, maybe government officials shouldn't be abusive dicks." Guess what? Most government officials who opined on the matter agree.

So what, exactly, are you trying to say?
 
2013-11-07 04:26:56 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: For my part, and for the sake of my family and the constitutional rule of law, I would take up arms again to defend the United States.


Your error is in assuming that defending the US is for the sake of the constitutional rule of law.  If your assumption is correct, no one would have a problem with that.  If your assumption is not correct and the US has run off the rails, so to speak, then you are going to find some folks that will have a problem.

Again, if the US Goverment is not going to live by the Consitutuion, why should anyone else?
 
2013-11-07 04:28:17 PM

HeadLever: But what happens when the country no longer adhers to the consitution, a.k.a going off the rails?  If they no longer go by the constitution, why should we?


What are the first seven words of the Constitution?
Have you been disenfranchised, or do you also get to vote when the asshole next door votes?
And who is this "we", if not all of your fellow citizens, no matter their melanin, religion, plumbing, etc.?
 
2013-11-07 04:29:58 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH

Among my ancestors were two militia members (father and son) who were murdered by a group of Tories who took them prisoner.
Also among my ancestors were men who fought for the Confederacy.
They willingly paid the price of treason.

Also among my ancestors are men who fought to preserve the United States and succeeded.


Uh, ok. My family came here a long time after that. We're not so much emotionally invested. To us, oppression = bad, regardless of the flag flying overhead.

For my part, and for the sake of my family and the constitutional rule of law, I would take up arms again to defend the United States.

You keep skipping over questions of that constitutional rule of law, saying you'd defend the ruling powers regardless.

Nothing the neocon(federate)s are saying would induce me to take their side:

Do you honestly believe the situation is established government vs. neo-cons? This seems like a fantasy to me. Neo-cons ran the government some very few years ago. Their policies are still being carried out in many ways.

Like the South in 1860, their cause is corrupt;
their motives are greed and power;
their goals -
the institution of a corporatist theocracy,
the enslavement of women to fetuses,
the economic enslavement of workers,
making our children ignorant,
the denial and curtailment of basic human rights,
and the destruction of our government and undoing of its every positive, decent accomplishment;
and their methods attack the very structure of civil society and divide us.


That's an interesting view, but do you honestly feel that anyone who might oppose the American government is of these convictions? It's very cartoonish.

The point: If you take up arms against the United States while I am still capable of bearing arms, I will take up arms against you.

Well, ok. Hail the flag no matter what, I guess. Hail victory!
 
2013-11-07 04:31:21 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The rare occurrence we should be basing policy on as opposed to those rare mass shootings we shouldn't be basing policy on.


These are not mutually exclusive issues.  Why not both?
 
2013-11-07 04:35:44 PM

sprawl15: It does no such thing, unless you are suggesting that the definition of "keep" does not include ownership of property outside of your current city limits. And, again:


Prior to enactment of the law, residents of such firearms could legally own such firearms within the city.

After enactment of the law, residents of such firearms could no longer legally own those same firearms within the city, even if they had owned those firearms prior to enactment of the law.

Additionally, the law did not prohibit ownership of property outside of the city limits because the New York city government cannot legally regulate property outside of the New York city limits.

Based upon your previous assertion, and the assertion of COMALite J, the law enacted by the City of New York violates the "Ex Post Facto" clause of the United States Constitution.

f you want to move the goalposts now, that's fine.

I have relocated no scoring structures; I originally noted that the "Ex Post Facto" clause of the United States Constitution does not preclude a government -- including the federal government -- from prohibiting, at some future date, the possession of a currently legal item.
 
2013-11-07 04:36:01 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: What are the first seven words of the Constitution?


Which has nothing to do with my point.  Just because 'we' are part of the government does not limit or hinder the government's ability to violate the governing bounds set by the constitution.  For example, just because the goverment effed up the RoE and viloated the 4th Amendment in every way possible, does not mean that the citizens voted on or endorsed this action.
 
2013-11-07 04:36:37 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Nina_Hartley's_Ass

Oh yeah, Rube-y Ridge. The rare occurrence we should be basing policy on as opposed to those rare mass shootings we shouldn't be basing policy on.

What do you imagine you're trying to say, here? The only policy anyone wants out of Ruby Ridge is "hey, maybe government officials shouldn't be abusive dicks." Guess what? Most government officials who opined on the matter agree.

So what, exactly, are you trying to say?


Is Nina_Hartley's_Ass not merely attempting to express irrational disdain and contempt for all firearm owners, as is the case in every discussion?
 
2013-11-07 04:38:33 PM
Dimensio

Is Nina_Hartley's_Ass not merely attempting to express irrational disdain and contempt for all firearm owners, as is the case in every discussion?

Well, yes, but I can always hope for more.
 
2013-11-07 04:43:37 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: HeadLever: Zeno-25: Any one who thinks this is how it would go down is just plain stupid. No one can go toe to toe with the US military. Ideally, it would be death by a thousand cuts. They have been having lots of fun gathering experience fighting insurgencies in a couple of relatively small countries lately, though. Either way, there is no way you would be able to effectively occupy the entire USA under marshall law without vast tracts of unpoliced areas.

And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.

*snerk* I strongly urge you not to test your hypothesis, traitor.


I'm not advocating it, just stating that there would be an insurgency before you ever saw a an AR weilding Teabagger on an armored hoveround take on the USMC.
 
2013-11-07 04:44:10 PM

sprawl15: The dissonance between what the law actually said and what the AG allowed to occur caused all kinds of issues, including arrests of people who didn't have a detachable magazine on their weapon. That went up to the courts, who said the AG was a farking idiot and shouldn't have let that happen and that all of those guns were assault weapons. This was followed by a series of amnesty periods where one could register their firearms after the fact (covering them under § 12285), which also were put to an end by the courts.


You're pretty much correct up until this point. The California DA thought that these weapons could be owned legally and registered. He reversed that position in 1998 and because of the confusion that caused the CA legislature had to make a clear law deciding the issue. That's what I linked to. Even if you had previously registered one of those rifles they had to be disposed of or given up after that law came into effect.
 
2013-11-07 04:45:55 PM

Dimensio: Based upon your previous assertion, and the assertion of COMALite J, the law enacted by the City of New York violates the "Ex Post Facto" clause of the United States Constitution.


Incorrect. As I said before:

sprawl15: still not an example of what you're talking about: a "[mandate] that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date", as owners are given the agency to move them out of the city

That agency is incredibly important because were no such agency given it would very clearly be a violation of ex post facto.

Dimensio: I originally noted that the "Ex Post Facto" clause of the United States Constitution does not preclude a government -- including the federal government -- from prohibiting, at some future date, the possession of a currently legal item.


No, you noted:

Dimensio: The [ex post facto] clause does not prohibit Congress from passing legislation prohibiting possession of a class of firearms at some future time and mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date.

There are distinctions. You supposedly hold yourself to a higher level of argument, so why are you engaging in pettiness like fairweather shifting of your arguments?
 
2013-11-07 04:52:33 PM

HeadLever: And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.


Not until the checks bounce.
 
2013-11-07 04:53:23 PM
My philosophy is pretty selfish. I have a large collection of penis extensions, but fully favor extensive gun control, because 1--criminals will never steal and use them as soon as they become more controlled, and 2--you're all f*cking insane. The States are full of mentally unbalanced idiots, and most of you should be superglued to your disabled Go-Go Ultra X 3-Wheel Travel Mobility scooters. The mental disorder situation here is only going to get worse, since apparently winning partisan wars and treating symptoms are far more important than solving problems.

I used to make a big deal about how I was a "responsible gun enthusiast" in response to the label "gun nut", but really, I want what you disingenuous, intellectually dishonest morons (Hi Jon Stewart!) want, as long as mine aren't taken away.
 
2013-11-07 04:55:26 PM

sprawl15: That agency is incredibly important because were no such agency given it would very clearly be a violation of ex post facto.


You are attaching an artificial constraint; the city of New York was unable to regulate firearms outside of the city limits, thus owned firearms moved out of the city could not be affected by any city laws. Nonetheless, the owners of such firearms were no longer able to keep their firearms within the city, when previously they had been able to do so.

By your same reasoning, a federal law would not violate what you claim to be an "ex post facto" prohibition" because owners could transport their firearms outside of the country, where federal law would have no jurisdiction.
 
2013-11-07 05:00:32 PM

odinsposse: The California DA thought that these weapons could be owned legally and registered. He reversed that position in 1998 and because of the confusion that caused the CA legislature had to make a clear law deciding the issue.


Only due to the pressure of the courts - the Dingman case in particular going up to the state supreme court and the backing of Dingman and the increasingly obvious conclusion that the court would draw (old old news article).

odinsposse: Even if you had previously registered one of those rifles they had to be disposed of or given up after that law came into effect.


They always needed to be disposed of. That's the whole point - the weapons were never legally brought into the state and sold to owners, because the Executive branch decided to ignore what the Legislative legislated. Those imported rifles and mods were explicitly against the law and always were explicitly against the law. The law you linked did not change that. The purpose of the law that you linked was to abrogate those who illegally bought an illegally imported firearm without malice of criminal penalties. The state bent over backwards allowing not only registration (early rounds of which were upheld, the later ones not so) but backwards modification to allow one to keep those rifles. Now, why that AG wasn't thrown in jail is beyond me, but something something California.

But to call that a parallel with a confiscation of legally purchased items is silly. A hypothetical where the state of Georgia's AG decides to allow import/sale of weapons banned by the NFA and then the Fed steps in and takes the weapons out of the hands of those who were illegally sold the weapons while providing for more than fair reimbursement and no criminal penalties is far closer to what happened with the SKS rifles in Cali.
 
2013-11-07 05:01:17 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.

Not until the checks bounce.


The checks didn't bounce in 1861.  The checks didn't bounce during the English Civil War, either.
 
2013-11-07 05:08:02 PM

Dimensio: You are attaching an artificial constraint; the city of New York was unable to regulate firearms outside of the city limits, thus owned firearms moved out of the city could not be affected by any city laws.


Incorrect. The city of New York could have instead worded the law such that they were illegal to own/transport immediately. That would deny individuals the agency to move said firearms, making it a violation of ex post facto. Do you deny a distinction between "The thing you legally own is illegal here starting now" and "The thing you legally own will be illegal soon but if you want to keep it you can move it"?

Again, I'll cite Calder v. Bull:
I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done, criminal and punishes such action.

Dimensio: By your same reasoning, a federal law would not violate what you claim to be an "ex post facto" prohibition" because owners could transport their firearms outside of the country, where federal law would have no jurisdiction.


State/local governments are restricted much less strictly in authorized action than the Federal government. Such a prohibition is impossible because of the lack of enumerated authority to enact such a prohibition in the first place.
 
2013-11-07 05:18:22 PM

sprawl15: State/local governments are restricted much less strictly in authorized action than the Federal government. Such a prohibition is impossible because of the lack of enumerated authority to enact such a prohibition in the first place.


We are at a fundamental disagreement of the meaning of the "Ex Post Facto" prohibition of the United States Constitution.

While I acknowledge that the clause would not allow previously documented ownership of a newly banned firearm to establish probable cause of criminal possession after the enactment of the ban, I dispute that the clause prohibits the federal government from outlawing possession of a class of currently legally owned firearms at some future date. The absence of case law to the contrary, combined, the explicit endorsement of such bans by elected officials is valid reason to oppose enactment of a system that would document ownership of such firearms to government officials, unless that system includes with it a safeguard to make future prohibition efforts impractical (such as a clause mandating destruction of a registry should a firearm prohibition be passed through Congress, but before that prohibition is signed into law by the President).
 
2013-11-07 05:29:28 PM

NEDM: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.

Not until the checks bounce.

The checks didn't bounce in 1861.  The checks didn't bounce during the English Civil War, either.


There wasn't a large standing military then.
So there were no checks to bounce.
 
2013-11-07 05:40:49 PM

sprawl15: They always needed to be disposed of. That's the whole point - the weapons were never legally brought into the state and sold to owners, because the Executive branch decided to ignore what the Legislative legislated. Those imported rifles and mods were explicitly against the law and always were explicitly against the law.


That isn't really true. Balance of powers and all that. The attorney general's office has the power to decide how laws are executed and the AG's opinion can significantly change how the law works. See  this guy for an example of that. So if there's a disagreement on the interpretation of a law between the AG and the legislature you can't call it settled until it is actually settled.

The people who owned those rifles were not, in the opinion of the AG, breaking the law.
 
2013-11-07 05:52:04 PM

Witty_Retort: There wasn't a large standing military then.


There was one  shortly afterward though.  Two in fact. Did they get paid?
 
2013-11-07 06:02:03 PM

Witty_Retort: NEDM: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: HeadLever: And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.

Not until the checks bounce.

The checks didn't bounce in 1861.  The checks didn't bounce during the English Civil War, either.

There wasn't a large standing military then.
So there were no checks to bounce.



Yes there were, and you know it.  Despite it being small, it was still paid well enough for the time so people would actually consider it as a career.  It was still split in two by the Civil War (although admittedly not by such a large degree until Virginia seceded).
 
2013-11-07 06:22:59 PM

odinsposse: The attorney general's office has the power to decide how laws are executed and the AG's opinion can significantly change how the law works.


The law stated "SKS Rifles with a detachable magazine". He said that some SKS rifles with a detachable magazine did not count. It's not getting a grey area call wrong, it's just idiocy.

Dimensio: I dispute that the clause prohibits the federal government from outlawing possession of a class of currently legally owned firearms at some future date


Practical restrictions aside, that's exactly what it does unless caveats to the outlaw are attached such as grandfather clauses.

Dimensio: The absence of case law to the contrary


I have cited case law to the contrary, including the key ex post facto case. I have also given examples to the contrary (prohibition, probably the prime example of the Federal government attempting to outlaw a product). You are free to ask for more case law, but you are not going to just ignore the cited case law. You have not provided any case law to the contrary, perhaps that is what you meant?

Dimensio: the explicit endorsement of such bans by elected officials


Is farking meaningless in every sense of the word. Elected officials can say whatever they want. Hell, the legislation can pass whatever they want and face the courts in due time.

Dimensio: is valid reason to oppose enactment of a system that would document ownership of such firearms to government officials


Your argument suggests a belief that the documentation of ownership of firearms holds practical supremacy over any other potential hurdle to a gun grab, including those I listed earlier. You have provided nothing to support such a claim or address any of the other significant hurdles that exist that would prevent a gun grab.

And you have not provided any evidence that (P ⇒ Q) ⇔ (Q ⇒ P).
 
2013-11-07 09:21:49 PM
Just hot air. The ones you really have to worry about don't care about gun control legislation because they avoid registered guns - and even gun shows - at all costs.

/Also, IT just WOULDN'T be a PROPER conservative rant WITHOUT RANDOM capitalization IN the MIDDLE OF sentences
 
2013-11-07 09:43:37 PM

RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.


Just because youre paranoid, doesnt mean somebody isnt planning to take your guns, right?
 
2013-11-07 10:41:50 PM

Elegy: new_york_monty: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Add safety classes to the curriculum in all public schools at the elementary or jr high level. Soon enough, the  majority of the population will know how to safely handle guns. And there are no gun owner lists to freak out the tin foil brigade.

I am 100% for this idea.

Gun control advocates would never let it pass, though, so it's a moot point.


I like this idea too.  But gun control advocates would use every ad hominem attack in the book until they got their way.


hinten: RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control.   Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

What about all those that would be trained to use a gun but not actually own one?

Having a driver license does not mean you own a car.


And just because you have a license doesn't mean that you're going to act responsiblity either.  A driver's license is only an indication that you were able to pass the bare minimum requirements (which in the US isn't much) in order for you to get a license.  It's not a barometric as to how good of a driver you are, how experienced of a driver you are, or how responsible of a driver you are.
 
2013-11-07 10:49:29 PM
I  remember reading articles by Dick Metcalf since I was a pre-teen till my 20's.  He always was very concerned about safety first which was the way my family was.
I was warned constantly from the time I was 8 until I was in my 20's about where to point, breach open until it was time to take a shot.  So many small details to pay attention to.
I wish it were part of the culture to have almost extreme safety training as I did, then people would not think about using a gun when they get angry but instead training has made you not even consider it for safety concerns.
 
2013-11-08 01:19:56 AM

rev. dave: I  remember reading articles by Dick Metcalf since I was a pre-teen till my 20's.  He always was very concerned about safety first which was the way my family was.
I was warned constantly from the time I was 8 until I was in my 20's about where to point, breach open until it was time to take a shot.  So many small details to pay attention to.
I wish it were part of the culture to have almost extreme safety training as I did, then people would not think about using a gun when they get angry but instead training has made you not even consider it for safety concerns.


A generation ago, that's what the then-respectable NRA was entirely about.

Then it became a self-sustaining for-profit monster, ginning up irrational loyalty to vend to politicians.
 
2013-11-08 05:17:46 AM

Marcus Aurelius: hinten: Having a driver license does not mean you own a car.

But not having a driver's license doesn't mean you don't own a car.  Critical difference.


It does mean you don't get to legally use said car. Using something as dangerous as a car requires proof you know what your doing. Luckily guns are not dangerous.
 
2013-11-08 08:33:26 AM

LeftOfLiberal: It does mean you don't get to legally use said car.


You can use it on private land all you want without a license. The licensing is predicated on controlling public use.
 
2013-11-08 11:48:53 AM

sprawl15: LeftOfLiberal: It does mean you don't get to legally use said car.

You can use it on private land all you want without a license. The licensing is predicated on controlling public use.


Ah. That's a reasonable analogy.

Tell me something, though:
How much are these magical bullets that stop at property boundaries or can be pulled over and stopped by the cops if they stray outside the bounds?
 
2013-11-08 01:12:30 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: sprawl15: LeftOfLiberal: It does mean you don't get to legally use said car.

You can use it on private land all you want without a license. The licensing is predicated on controlling public use.

Ah. That's a reasonable analogy.


It's not an analogy, it's a correction to someone who doesn't understand the law.
 
2013-11-08 01:22:34 PM

sprawl15: demaL-demaL-yeH: sprawl15: LeftOfLiberal: It does mean you don't get to legally use said car.

You can use it on private land all you want without a license. The licensing is predicated on controlling public use.

Ah. That's a reasonable analogy.

It's not an analogy, it's a correction to someone who doesn't understand the law.


demaL-demaL-yeH: Tell me something, though:
How much are these magical bullets that stop at property boundaries or can be pulled over and stopped by the cops if they stray outside the bounds?


No, it is an analogy. A crappy one.
My question stands, since it addresses laws of physics.
 
2013-11-08 01:26:46 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: No, it is an analogy.


"You can't drive a car without a license!"
"Actually, you can on private property"

do you know what an analogy is

serious question
 
2013-11-08 03:17:14 PM
It helps if you use punctuation.
Look upthread six comments for the context. It is an analogy.

How much do these magic bullets that stop at property lines cost?

Serious question.
 
2013-11-08 03:51:06 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: It is an analogy.


so no you do not understand what an analogy is

i will explain

an analogy is when someone makes an argument by taking some other situation as an example and claiming an isomorphism between the two

for example, if i said "like cars, we should only license public use of firearms" you could consider the 'like cars' portion of my post an analogy and then question its validity

however, what i said was "your post on licensing requirements for driving cars is mechanically wrong, here is a more correct reading". it is not comparing anything to anything else, which is a fundamental requirement for any attempt at analogy. it is not even making a value statement, which is when you say something should or could happen. it is just stating what the actual law says

perhaps your misguided nonsense was supposed to be directed at people actually making the analogies you seem very, very upset about? or perhaps you just do not know any better and actually shiat your pants any time anyone says anything that could remotely be tied to whatever strawman you have a rage boner for

either way, go fark yourself
 
2013-11-08 07:08:20 PM

sprawl15: demaL-demaL-yeH: It is an analogy.

so no you do not understand what an analogy is

i will explain

an analogy is when someone makes an argument by taking some other situation as an example and claiming an isomorphism between the two

for example, if i said "like cars, we should only license public use of firearms" you could consider the 'like cars' portion of my post an analogy and then question its validity

however, what i said was "your post on licensing requirements for driving cars is mechanically wrong, here is a more correct reading". it is not comparing anything to anything else, which is a fundamental requirement for any attempt at analogy. it is not even making a value statement, which is when you say something should or could happen. it is just stating what the actual law says

perhaps your misguided nonsense was supposed to be directed at people actually making the analogies you seem very, very upset about? or perhaps you just do not know any better and actually shiat your pants any time anyone says anything that could remotely be tied to whatever strawman you have a rage boner for

either way, go fark yourself


You are mistaken.
Perhaps a class in composition or rhetoric might help.

You are not using logic terms correctly, and your reasoning is not sound.
Perhaps a class in formal logic and critical thinking might help.

I could be wrong about this.
Because you may not be educable.

Therefore, I have one suggestion that applies under either circumstance:
You sound angry.
Stay away from firearms: Somebody could be hurt unnecessarliy.

No, make that two suggestions:
Masturbate: It may help relieve your anger.
 
2013-11-08 07:20:49 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: You are mistaken.


About what? Your entire stream of bullshiat is asking me to justify an analogy I didn't make or support.

Do you have any actual points or are you just insistent on letting me know just how big a farking moron you are?
 
Displayed 335 of 335 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report