Who would argue the point in your topic? I personally support greater freedom concerning gun rights, but I would never presume to argue that things like this don't make it easier on criminals. To argue such a thing would be plain ignorant...
True, it's not the gun show itself... but it never has been. Instead, it's the sellers who use them to avoid incovenient rules, like the ones intended to keep weapons out of the hands of known felons or suspected domestic terrorists. You know, the bad guys?
There is no doubt that felons can get guns at gun shows but I think it's a little far fetched to assume tighter gun control laws would curb this. Tighter gun laws might stymie gun shows or the very least stymie small and no-name dealers that just want to make a quick dollar and don't care who they sell to.
Not sure where the OP is going with this but I'm opposed to stricter gun laws so if it's supposed to support his/her view of tighter gun control I don't exactly see how tighter gun control would improve the situation. If a felon cannot buy a gun at a gun show he'll steal one or buy one from the trunk of some guys car.
So, every car has a gun in the trunk? Because every gun show has guns at it; a little more dependable source. It's also against the ESTABLISHED law, no need for more laws when the current ones, properly enforced, suffice.
Yeah, stricter gun control wouldn't help much IMO. Hell, you could outright oulaw guns, then guess whos got access to em? Outlaws. Although people selling guns should take greater care in who they're selling them too. Thats a matter of personal responsibility though.
I don't see how you can really go about enforcing "the guy should have known he couldn't pass a background check", though.
I mean, if criminals are telling the people they buy guns from that they couldn't pass a background check, they're dumber than most. The law as it currently exists in the states mentioned doesn't have much of a reason to exist, in my opinion; it seems decorative.
I've said in a lot of these threads that properly enforcing the laws you've got would do a lot more good than introducing new laws. I guess proper enforcement includes closing technicalities like the gun show loophole.
Pretty much everything that needs to be said has been. Lets review shall we folks?
* More Laws = Bad/Pointless
* Proper Enforcement of current laws is what is needed. Nothing more.
* Its not the Gun Shows fault that someone is breaking the law. Thats like saying Ford is responsible for every death caused by every drunk behind the wheel of a Ford.
* No matter what one does, the "bad guys" are still going to get firearms. When you enact more stupid restrictions the only person you hurt is the law abideing citizen.
* BRING BACK CLASS 3 IMPORTS!!!!!
or, rather than close Gun Shows, only allow day of Gun Show sales to registered shooters?
You need insurance before you can buy a car, simply only allow people with a hunting permit/Concealed carry/etc to buy day of. Everybody else has to have it shipped after the check.
jp400 wrote:* More Laws = Bad/Pointless
* Proper Enforcement of current laws is what is needed. Nothing more.
Sort of. What occurred is legal in 41 states. It's clearly against the intent of the law, and the loophole should be closed. Why that hasn't happened is an exercise left up to the reader.
* No matter what one does, the "bad guys" are still going to get firearms. When you enact more stupid restrictions the only person you hurt is the law abideing citizen.
Limiting legal access will never stop all illegal access, but it would be very bloody minded to argue that restricting general supply won't impact black market supply at all.
I mean pot is pretty generally available, but it costs a lot more than it should for being easily cultivated anywhere in the United States.
A lot of potentially dangerous people are finally arrested and convicted of gun crimes, and making it harder for people that are dangerous to buy guns makes it easier to lock them up when they do.
lord_sutekh wrote:Gun shows themselves are the loophole. Close them, problem solved.
While we are at it, lets ban drugs... that will solve all our drug pro.........oh right.
sebster wrote:Limiting legal access will never stop all illegal access, but it would be very bloody minded to argue that restricting general supply won't impact black market supply at all.
It wont. Iraq is proof of this failed train of thought. I should know... ive spent alot of time takeing away peoples guns. And yet, magically they somehow kept getting ahold of them.
Funny how that works.
**EDIT**
Also NO what occured is NOT legal in 41 states. It is illegal for a registered dealer to transfer a firearm without a background check or to transfer to anyone who is a convicted felon. The people that did this are at the very least going to lose their dealers permit if not spend some time in jail.
Well, for starters, impacting black market supply doesn't make something impossible to get. You can always buy what you want.
The Us is also different from Iraq. We're not bordered by a nation that sees a big upside in supplying black market weapons. Mexico might be unreliable, but they'd at least help trucks of guns from crossing the border illegally, if only because they don't' want trucks of guns either.
Above, when discussing weed, if the cost of a no strings attached hand gun tripled, that will have an impact on who is carrying one. Guns are also a lot easier to trace than drugs, and unlike drugs, aren't produced and/or imported illegally. Which means we know roughly how many guns are made, how many come into the country, and it's not amazingly difficult to start finding the leaks.
jp400 wrote:
It wont. Iraq is proof of this failed train of thought. I should know... ive spent alot of time takeing away peoples guns. And yet, magically they somehow kept getting ahold of them.
Funny how that works.
Iraq is not the United States. The difference between developed nations, and undeveloped ones is more than a little significant.
Still, are we talking about the same people with different guns, or different people with different guns?
jp400 wrote:It wont. Iraq is proof of this failed train of thought. I should know... ive spent alot of time takeing away peoples guns. And yet, magically they somehow kept getting ahold of them.
Funny how that works.
Two problems. First up, I'd bet if I pointed out that other developed nations had much lower rates of gun deaths than the US, you'd be very quick to point out how comparisons across countries are not valid because there's so many other factors involved. But here you are comparing the US to a wildly dissimilar nation. You can have one... comparisons across countries are valid, or they are not.
Secondly, I said in my previous post that restricting guns aren't going to magically prevent all access to blackmarket firearms. That would be crazy. But it is just as crazy to argue that reducing the legal quantity of a good does not impact its blackmarket supply, otherwise why bother to outlaw anything, ever?
Now, there is a perfectly valid argument to be had that for many pieces of proposed or enacted legislation the increase in inconvenience for legal owners is too great for the increased difficulty of supply. Once that's agreed to, we can go about discussing the relative inconvenience and benefits of individual pieces of legislation. But if you're going to straight up argue that controlling legal supply has no effect on blackmarket access then there's simply no point discussing this, as you're obviously not being willing to be sensible about the issue.
**EDIT**
Also NO what occured is NOT legal in 41 states. It is illegal for a registered dealer to transfer a firearm without a background check or to transfer to anyone who is a convicted felon. The people that did this are at the very least going to lose their dealers permit if not spend some time in jail.
As per the article, at gunshows in 41 states the seller doesn't have to check if someone can legally buy the gun, but is only required to not sell a gun if the buyer somehow decides to declare out of the blue that they wouldn't pass a check. It's a ridiculous piece of law, designed to be ineffectual.
Clthomps wrote:Cue Frazzled's commentary on gun control.....
Its a bull t stunt by NYC. 1. Last I saw NYC wasn't in charge of the USA. The rest of us tell NYC to go itself. 2. Its not illegal in the rest of the country. Sorry, we don't have NYC's crime rates. 3. Did I mention it was a scam? Private sales anywehere are not regulated in the states the scam took place. 4. Criminals don't buy guns at gunshows. They buy them elsewhere, like from Mexican drug cartels. 5. They spent millions for this scam. How's their budget looking right now?
I'd stun you all by saying everyone but me should get background checks or have private firearm purchases run through an FFL intermediary, but you'll still call me a rightwing nutjob. If I say the same on other sites I pretty much have to lock and load because I'll be hunted as being a commie pinko, or worse from Hollywood.
Having said that I want to remind the federal government I don't own any firearms and don't have a clue what I'm talking about. I for one welcome our new gun restricting overlords...
Its a bull t stunt by NYC.
1. Last I saw NYC wasn't in charge of the USA. The rest of us tell NYC to go itself.
2. Its not illegal in the rest of the country. Sorry, we don't have NYC's crime rates.
3. Did I mention it was a scam? Private sales anywehere are not regulated in the states the scam took place.
4. Criminals don't buy guns at gunshows. They buy them elsewhere, like from Mexican drug cartels.
5. They spent millions for this scam. How's their budget looking right now?
I'd stun you all by saying everyone but me should get background checks or have private firearm purchases run through an FFL intermediary, but you'll still call me a rightwing nutjob. If I say the same on other sites I pretty much have to lock and load because I'll be hunted as being a commie pinko, or worse from Hollywood.
Having said that I want to remind the federal government I don't own any firearms and don't have a clue what I'm talking about. I for one welcome our new gun restricting overlords...
So for once I agree 100% with Frazzled..... You may want to add that to your sig.
We should get rid of gun restrictions completely in this country and issue a handgun, and a rifle to every one no convicted of a violent crime in the entire country. Sure 99% of criminals will have guns, but also 100% of innocent by-standards will have them also! Prison populations will decrease in a dramatic fasion, petty crimes will be almost nil, public politeness will increase tenfold, and no nation in the world ever think about invading a country with 304,059,724 angry gun toting citizens.
Having said that I want to remind the federal government I don't own any firearms and am know for my incoherent ramblings, and I welcome our new gun restricting overlords with open arms....
sebster wrote:
Secondly, I said in my previous post that restricting guns aren't going to magically prevent all access to blackmarket firearms. That would be crazy. But it is just as crazy to argue that reducing the legal quantity of a good does not impact its blackmarket supply, otherwise why bother to outlaw anything, ever?
Read a histroy book sometime for why this section is an epic facepalm.
sebster wrote:Now, there is a perfectly valid argument to be had that for many pieces of proposed or enacted legislation the increase in inconvenience for legal owners is too great for the increased difficulty of supply. Once that's agreed to, we can go about discussing the relative inconvenience and benefits of individual pieces of legislation. But if you're going to straight up argue that controlling legal supply has no effect on blackmarket access then there's simply no point discussing this, as you're obviously not being willing to be sensible about the issue.
I see what you did...
And im more then willing to discuss a point, so long as said point isnt utterly pointless and the people on the other side arnt drones.
sebster wrote:
As per the article, at gunshows in 41 states the seller doesn't have to check if someone can legally buy the gun, but is only required to not sell a gun if the buyer somehow decides to declare out of the blue that they wouldn't pass a check. It's a ridiculous piece of law, designed to be ineffectual.
If you have EVER bought a firearm in the US then you know that what you are saying is wrong. Here let me clear it up for you:
A: It is illegal for a REGISTERED DEALER to sell/transfer a firearm to any person without filling out paperwork and doing a background check unless they have a State issue CC permit.
B: Private sales are a completly different deal and are perfectly legal. If I get a firearm, lets say from my Great Grand Father dying and I dont want it. I can put an add in the Nickles Worth saying "M1A used, shoots good $1100 obo.." and I can sell that firearm without any paperwork. Now pending your state, you have X amount of days to go to your local sheriff department and register said firearm.
Granted alot of people dont register it (which is why you hear on the news that Joe Blow was arrested with an unlicensed firearm) but more laws isnt the answer, proper enforcement of the current laws is.
Clthomps wrote:Cue Frazzled's commentary on gun control.....
Its a bull t stunt by NYC.
1. Last I saw NYC wasn't in charge of the USA. The rest of us tell NYC to go itself.
2. Its not illegal in the rest of the country. Sorry, we don't have NYC's crime rates.
3. Did I mention it was a scam? Private sales anywehere are not regulated in the states the scam took place.
4. Criminals don't buy guns at gunshows. They buy them elsewhere, like from Mexican drug cartels.
5. They spent millions for this scam. How's their budget looking right now?
Frazzled wrote:Its my understanding that the price for cocaine and crack cocaine are at historic lows.
According to my friends, it simply depends on where you live (in terms of cocaine, I don't know anyone who uses crack regularly). My buddy in MN who washed out of school is paying double what he did 2 years ago. My friend in Texas is paying half.
I just went to school with a whole ton of really wealthy people. Though I can't say the idea of taking their money via dealing never crossed my mind...
dogma wrote:I just went to school with a whole ton of really wealthy people. Though I can't say the idea of taking their money via dealing never crossed my mind...
The cost of drugs on campuses is ridiculous. Most students won't deal, and won't deal with the actual dealers in the areas, paritcularly if the school is in a bad neighborhood. So you've got at least one or two more middle men.
There's also the issue of using your own stock. The guys I knew that actually bought off local dealers with the intent to distribute usually ended up using so much of their product that they had to charge double or triple to make their money back.
On the flip side though Meth and Weed are near rock bottom in Mn compared to most other states. I think for every meth lab destroyed up in northern Mn 3 more crop up in it's place within a years time.
Yeah, that article the OP posted does a piss poor job of trying to convince anyone of anything other than NY has crooked gun dealers. I'm sure 99% of registered gun dealers (or hopefully all of them) would not risk prison time and their dealer license by not going through the motions, down to the complete "dotting" of every "I" and the "crossing" of every "T".
I know I wouldn't be that stupid and careless but probably because making a few hundred bucks is not worth becoming someones bitch in the State pen.
Clthomps wrote:Cue Frazzled's commentary on gun control.....
Its a bull t stunt by NYC.
1. Last I saw NYC wasn't in charge of the USA. The rest of us tell NYC to go itself.
2. Its not illegal in the rest of the country. Sorry, we don't have NYC's crime rates.
3. Did I mention it was a scam? Private sales anywehere are not regulated in the states the scam took place.
4. Criminals don't buy guns at gunshows. They buy them elsewhere, like from Mexican drug cartels.
5. They spent millions for this scam. How's their budget looking right now?
I'd stun you all by saying everyone but me should get background checks or have private firearm purchases run through an FFL intermediary, but you'll still call me a rightwing nutjob. If I say the same on other sites I pretty much have to lock and load because I'll be hunted as being a commie pinko, or worse from Hollywood.
Having said that I want to remind the federal government I don't own any firearms and don't have a clue what I'm talking about. I for one welcome our new gun restricting overlords...
You have the right of it there. What else can you expect from the government of a city where they light up the Empire State building in red to honor the 60th anniversery of the Communist takeover of China?
Isn't what these New York guys did illegal?
Fateweaver wrote:On the flip side though Meth and Weed are near rock bottom in Mn compared to most other states.
Partially because the weed in MN is usually grown in MN, and MN weed is generally crap. If you want anything decent you need to get it from CO, or Canada; at which point the prices normalize.
Sorry, my undergrad thesis on economics dealt with the US drug trade.
I think all weed is crap but that is for another time and place.
Meth is apparently dirt cheap here compared to other States, though when you live in a state with 10's of thousands of acres of forest it's not too hard to hide a lab or two long enough to get out some product.
Yeah and not to make it racial but I've heard most of weed into the Twin Cities area is brought in here by Mexicans and Mexican gangs.
Never got lucky enough to live in the bad part of the Metro area so can't really comment on the who's and the where's of gangs in that part so I'm just going on hearsay.
I think we are kind of wandering off topic dogma. Death to gangs!!! Guns for the gun god!!!!!! (Who also just so happens to be me).
That said, in my experience, most of the (good) weed comes in from Colorado by way of out-state college students, and full-time growers. However, that may simply reflect who my sources were willing to deal with.
jp400 wrote:Read a histroy book sometime for why this section is an epic facepalm.
Those images don't relate to anything in this conversation. Some are quite good, but very irrelevant.
Meanwhile, I've read history books. Estimates show use of alcohol after prohibition dropped to around 30% of pre-prohibition rates, and then rose to level out at about 60 or 70% of pre-prohibition rates.
Prohibition was, of course, terrible policy, enacted for purely moralistic reasons, and caused great inconvenience to average users. But it's a pretty strong example of control of a product at the general level resulting in reduced access at the blackmarket level.
I see what you did...
And im more then willing to discuss a point, so long as said point isnt utterly pointless and the people on the other side arnt drones.
What I did wasn't subtle. I said this is an interesting topic, and there's a lot of ground for reasoned disagreement, and plenty of arguments can be made for both sides. But if you're going to maintain that controlling a good at the general level does not affect the blackmarket level at all, then you simply aren't going to be part of a useful discussion on the topic.
If you have EVER bought a firearm in the US then you know that what you are saying is wrong. Here let me clear it up for you:
A: It is illegal for a REGISTERED DEALER to sell/transfer a firearm to any person without filling out paperwork and doing a background check unless they have a State issue CC permit.
B: Private sales are a completly different deal and are perfectly legal. If I get a firearm, lets say from my Great Grand Father dying and I dont want it. I can put an add in the Nickles Worth saying "M1A used, shoots good $1100 obo.." and I can sell that firearm without any paperwork. Now pending your state, you have X amount of days to go to your local sheriff department and register said firearm.
And at these private sales you can purchase a gun without providing ID. Which seems a simple way to sidestep requirements, and something that could be fixed without any particular inconvenience.
Granted alot of people dont register it (which is why you hear on the news that Joe Blow was arrested with an unlicensed firearm) but more laws isnt the answer, proper enforcement of the current laws is.
Having a law in place that is easily sidestepped by a technicality, or that relies on voluntarily registering a firearm down the track simply isn't effective law. The answer isn't more laws, as I've said repeatedly, but in reforming current laws to make them worth a damn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Its my understanding that the price for cocaine and crack cocaine are at historic lows.
Do you think prices would be higher or lower if the product was completely legalised? Because that's the point of disagreement, jp400 is claiming that making a product illegal doesn't affect blackmarket supply at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:Most of the good weed indeed... Please continue though .
Fateweaver wrote:
Really, only a dumbass would not register his or her firearm. It's a felony to not do so.
As a person who has worked as a gun salesman in my home state, I can tell you that this isn't universally true. In AZ private sales of firearms are not required to be registered, and yes the feds CAN track the serial number to the original purchaser, but after that, if the person decides to sell, all they can do is check to see if it's registered as stolen.
On a personal note I LIKE my government not knowing who every person who has a firearm is. It's simple enough to prosecute illegal possessors without having to have a list of legal ones.
As to banning guns, I don't see that being a very peaceable bit of legislation. To many people, myself included, "From my cold, dead hands" is more than just a saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hmm, our new overlord sure did a lot to make it impossible for law abiding citzens to be able to take advantage of their 2nd Amendment rights (and this was as Senator).
I doubt it; especially considering he has spoken very little with regard to the matter (his votes appear to be partisan). My guess is that immigration is next on the table.
Your probably right, but I think that all depends on what happens with healtcare reform. Obama seems to be preparing himself for multiple "strategies".
Afghanistan is supposed to be sorted out over the next few weeks, but in all honesty, I doubt that really means anything overall.
Partially because the weed in MN is usually grown in MN, and MN weed is generally crap. If you want anything decent you need to get it from CO, or Canada; at which point the prices normalize.
MN weed, grown BY Americans, FOR Americans
Sorry, my undergrad thesis on economics dealt with the US drug trade.
Sure, Dogma, sure
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lordhat wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:
Really, only a dumbass would not register his or her firearm. It's a felony to not do so.
As a person who has worked as a gun salesman in my home state, I can tell you that this isn't universally true. In AZ private sales of firearms are not required to be registered, and yes the feds CAN track the serial number to the original purchaser, but after that, if the person decides to sell, all they can do is check to see if it's registered as stolen.
On a personal note I LIKE my government not knowing who every person who has a firearm is. It's simple enough to prosecute illegal possessors without having to have a list of legal ones.
As to banning guns, I don't see that being a very peaceable bit of legislation. To many people, myself included, "From my cold, dead hands" is more than just a saying.
I don't really understand the idea that legal and illegal guns could be distinguished from each other without registration.
It seems to me that the key difference is whether they are registered as being in the hands of an upright citizen, or unregistered being in the hands of a criminal.
It's like, how could you tell which cars had paid car tax and been insured, if you didn't keep a register of them.
It's fair enough to say that everyone should have a gun and not register it. Where are the illegal guns, then? I mean, as far as I can see there aren't any.
lord_sutekh wrote:Gun shows themselves are the loophole. Close them, problem solved.
You say that the current laws should suffice yet you consider using the "trivial solution" to just not allow gun shows? So you would arbitrarily say that I cannot do something I enjoy because you think it might close a supposed loophole? Any one example of misconduct at a particular gun show is anecdotal. I can point out just as many shows I've been to where the people were following the rules to the best of my knowledge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:or, rather than close Gun Shows, only allow day of Gun Show sales to registered shooters?
You need insurance before you can buy a car, simply only allow people with a hunting permit/Concealed carry/etc to buy day of. Everybody else has to have it shipped after the check.
Usually you're pretty knowledgeable of the law Polonius, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that I'm simply mistaken here, but I've never heard of a "hunting permit". There are hunting licenses, and usually there is a different license for small and large game, not to mention a federal duck stamp. However, in the state of Tennessee, as far as I know, the license does not dictate the equipment or tackle you use for hunting/fishing. The season, for deer at least, is what determines what you may or may not use for hunting ( i.e. bows during the first part of the season, then muzzleloader, then rifle).
The problem is that a felon can still get a hunting license, as far as I know. Also, concealed carry permits have nothing to do with your right to own a firearm, they have to do with concealed carry law. Furthermore, how would you use carry permits for this purpose for states that require no carry permits, such as Vermont and Alaska?
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't really understand the idea that legal and illegal guns could be distinguished from each other without registration.
It seems to me that the key difference is whether they are registered as being in the hands of an upright citizen, or unregistered being in the hands of a criminal.
It's like, how could you tell which cars had paid car tax and been insured, if you didn't keep a register of them.
It's fair enough to say that everyone should have a gun and not register it. Where are the illegal guns, then? I mean, as far as I can see there aren't any.
You try to register firearms here and you'll start a war the likes of which have not been seen since 1861.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't really understand the idea that legal and illegal guns could be distinguished from each other without registration.
It seems to me that the key difference is whether they are registered as being in the hands of an upright citizen, or unregistered being in the hands of a criminal.
It's like, how could you tell which cars had paid car tax and been insured, if you didn't keep a register of them.
It's fair enough to say that everyone should have a gun and not register it. Where are the illegal guns, then? I mean, as far as I can see there aren't any.
In my state there is no "registration", but federal law requires a background check, and they also take your fingerprints, though I don't know if the fingerprinting is a federal thing or not. "Legal guns" are firearms purchased in accordance with this federal law, ergo, firearms purchased in a manner not in accordance with this law could be considered "illegal guns".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
You try to register firearms here and you'll start a war the likes of which have not been seen since 1861.
Like I said earlier, the Federal government requires background checks and when you fill out the paperwork they record the serial number of the firearm. That in a way is a sort of registration. Is the fact that we don't call it registration essentially semantics?
Frazzled wrote:Er no, applications are not collected in Texas Griggie. EDIT let me rephrase they don't leave the state.
I don't know if TN apps leave the state. At this point it is a matter of whether the information is held by the state or by the state and the federal government. Why not just have it on a national level? As a law abiding citizen, I have no problem with the government knowing I have a firearm. Why not have it on a federal level, then we could put to rest all this silly legislation like magazine limits and regulations on whether you can have a folding stock or not. I mean, if I wanted to buy a Class 3 device or weapon, I'd be registering it with ATF already.
Oh wait I forgot. I for one welcome our newfederal overlords and promise to hunt down and narc out all those people who have firearms. Seriously no one I know has them. We just don't understand why people think they have a right to protect themselves from an oppressive government, or zombiepocalypse, but I repeat myself.
Frazzled wrote:First registration then confiscation.
Yeah..that's clearly and 100% inevitable.
Oh wait I forgot. I for one welcome our newfederal overlords and promise to hunt down and narc out all those people who have firearms. Seriously no one I know has them. We just don't understand why people think they have a right to protect themselves from an oppressive government, or zombiepocalypse, but I repeat myself.
Of course ! It's only your guns that keep you safe from the Govt.
Frazzled wrote:First registration then confiscation.
Oh wait I forgot. I for one welcome our newfederal overlords and promise to hunt down and narc out all those people who have firearms. Seriously no one I know has them. We just don't understand why people think they have a right to protect themselves from an oppressive government, or zombiepocalypse, but I repeat myself.
I know no one myself who is illegally possesing a firearm. If I did though, I wouldn't report them if they're not hurting anyone or planning to.
There is no evidence that because there is registration someone will invariably come and confiscate my weapons. I mean, if the state wanted to do that right now they could, that is my point. It would just be the state, not the federals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
Oh wait I forgot. I for one welcome our newfederal overlords and promise to hunt down and narc out all those people who have firearms. Seriously no one I know has them. We just don't understand why people think they have a right to protect themselves from an oppressive government, or zombiepocalypse, but I repeat myself.
Of course ! It's only your guns that keep you safe from the Govt.
right.
I really don't think anyone is litteraly going to rise up in armed resistance. I think it is an important contractual agreement between the government and the governed. As a symbol I think it is very important.
Frazzled wrote:First registration then confiscation.
Yeah..that's clearly and 100% inevitable.
Oh wait I forgot. I for one welcome our newfederal overlords and promise to hunt down and narc out all those people who have firearms. Seriously no one I know has them. We just don't understand why people think they have a right to protect themselves from an oppressive government, or zombiepocalypse, but I repeat myself.
Of course ! It's only your guns that keep you safe from the Govt.
right.
Well, if they were to issue martial law and start dragging people off to camps. Then yeah It might not really help, but I'd feel a whole lot better hiding on my roof with my .270 then cowering in the basement.
Kilkrazy wrote:Have they confiscated your cars? /rhetorical
I agree with you. However, you have to be very careful about drawing an analogy between automobiles and firearms in the United States. Firearms ownership by those who follow the law is a right here, which has been held up as individual, not collective.
The way people drive in my town, guns are safer than cars. I'd much rather the govt took those away first. That and hopefully their aim would be as bad as their driving.
Kilkrazy wrote:Have they confiscated your cars? /rhetorical
Cars are not guaranteed under the Constitution.
And yea in areas they registered them -again the joy of NY and that peaceful paradise of Chicago-yea they're pretty much illegal.
But that doesn't mean if they register firearms in TN or whatever that they'll confiscate them. I know you're not going to like the Frazzled, but I'm not personally against mandatory training or even a license. Unlike most of the gun control lobby, I don't worry about criminals, I'm much more concerned about people who are careless.
So anything guaranteed under the constitution will be taken away by the government if it is registered, but not if it isn't, and things which are not guaranteed won't be taken away if they are regiatered?
Kilkrazy wrote:So anything guaranteed under the constitution will be taken away by the government if it is registered, but not if it isn't, and things which are not guaranteed won't be taken away if they are regiatered?
I see what you're saying, but it could also be argued that registration would be considered odd when applied to other rights? Should you have to be registered to speak publicly? Should we have registered religions? I'm not saying what is right or wrong, I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of the constitution.
Kilkrazy wrote:So anything guaranteed under the constitution will be taken away by the government if it is registered, but not if it isn't, and things which are not guaranteed won't be taken away if they are regiatered?
I see what you're saying, but it could also be argued that registration would be considered odd when applied to other rights? Should you have to be registered to speak publicly? Should we have registered religions? I'm not saying what is right or wrong, I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of the constitution.
Actually I think we do have registered religions to a degree, Scientology had to go through some legal battles to get tax exempt status. So I imagine they have to register for that tax break.
I can sort of understand the "fear" of registration. We're constantly being bribed/threatened/cajoled with ID cards over here, and I'm agaisnt that.
Whilst, you know, having a National Insurance NUmber, birth certificate, utility bills, an IP address, and so on.
I just find it curious to see that people are on one hand convinced that THE EVIL GOVT. is covertly planning some astonishingly well planned and secret takeover whilst, at the same time , being crassly incompetent at everything. Hell they go through your stored credit card/similar records and follow you around for a week and they'll know 90% of what there is to know about you anytime they want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
reds8n wrote: Do you register to vote ?
I don't need to show ID to vote, strangely enough. What was that again you were saying?
Really ? You can just turn up and cast your vote at any polling station, presumably therefore any number of times can you ? So all those illegal immigrants do get to vote then ?
I can sort of understand the "fear" of registration. We're constantly being bribed/threatened/cajoled with ID cards over here, and I'm agaisnt that.
Whilst, you know, having a National Insurance NUmber, birth certificate, utility bills, an IP address, and so on.
I just find it curious to see that people are on one hand convinced that THE EVIL GOVT. is covertly planning some astonishingly well planned and secret takeover whilst, at the same time , being crassly incompetent at everything. Hell they go through your stored credit card/similar records and follow you around for a week and they'll know 90% of what there is to know about you anytime they want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
reds8n wrote: Do you register to vote ?
I don't need to show ID to vote, strangely enough. What was that again you were saying?
Really ? You can just turn up and cast your vote at any polling station, presumably therefore any number of times can you ? So all those illegal immigrants do get to vote then ?
I'm not sure since I usually vote by mail. But Illegal Immagrants = more votes, so it makes sense to me. Ol' Tandy from NYC would be proud.
I can sort of understand the "fear" of registration. We're constantly being bribed/threatened/cajoled with ID cards over here, and I'm agaisnt that.
Whilst, you know, having a National Insurance NUmber, birth certificate, utility bills, an IP address, and so on.
I just find it curious to see that people are on one hand convinced that THE EVIL GOVT. is covertly planning some astonishingly well planned and secret takeover whilst, at the same time , being crassly incompetent at everything. Hell they go through your stored credit card/similar records and follow you around for a week and they'll know 90% of what there is to know about you anytime they want.
I've never understood the fear of the government so many people in this country have. I don't see why the fact that I am a 2nd ammendment buff means I should fear the government. I think that is part of the political climate on both the right and left in this country. I wonder if that doesn't come out of the late 60s/early 70s.
Of course, I work for the government and have come to see all the good things that government does, so I'm biased I guess. I'll be the first to admit it can be damn inefficient at times. In fact, if they really wanted to start confiscating firearms, it would probably be years before they could get moving on it.
Polonius wrote:or, rather than close Gun Shows, only allow day of Gun Show sales to registered shooters?
You need insurance before you can buy a car, simply only allow people with a hunting permit/Concealed carry/etc to buy day of. Everybody else has to have it shipped after the check.
Usually you're pretty knowledgeable of the law Polonius, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that I'm simply mistaken here, but I've never heard of a "hunting permit". There are hunting licenses, and usually there is a different license for small and large game, not to mention a federal duck stamp. However, in the state of Tennessee, as far as I know, the license does not dictate the equipment or tackle you use for hunting/fishing. The season, for deer at least, is what determines what you may or may not use for hunting ( i.e. bows during the first part of the season, then muzzleloader, then rifle).
The problem is that a felon can still get a hunting license, as far as I know. Also, concealed carry permits have nothing to do with your right to own a firearm, they have to do with concealed carry law. Furthermore, how would you use carry permits for this purpose for states that require no carry permits, such as Vermont and Alaska?
I was just riffing on ideas. I know that in MI (the only state I know the hunting laws at all, and that just for shotgun shooting merit badge 15 years ago) you got separate permits to take a buck with muzzle loading, and another for bow, and another for rifle/shotgun.
All I was saying was that one way to allow day of sale transactions would be to allow a person to get some sort of "I'm not a felon/ I can buy guns" permit that lasts, say, six months. I used hunting licenses and the like because the infrastructure is already there, but it might not be the best idea.
As for concealed carry, I'm of the opinion that all states should allow it, but then only sell handguns to people with the permit, but that's my own wacky idea.
Norwulf wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:So anything guaranteed under the constitution will be taken away by the government if it is registered, but not if it isn't, and things which are not guaranteed won't be taken away if they are regiatered?
I see what you're saying, but it could also be argued that registration would be considered odd when applied to other rights? Should you have to be registered to speak publicly? Should we have registered religions? I'm not saying what is right or wrong, I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of the constitution.
Actually I think we do have registered religions to a degree, Scientology had to go through some legal battles to get tax exempt status. So I imagine they have to register for that tax break.
Well, it's important to remember that the question wasn't whether Scientology was a religion for 1st amendment reasons, but if they were non-profit so as to qualify as a charity for giving purposes. The IRS has actually won every court battle, they simply issued a Revenue Ruling saying they were going to accept it as a legit charity. That could be reversed at the discretion of the IRS, as Revenue Rulings aren't really law, they're just a statement about how the IRS plans to operate. When taxpayer friendly, nobody challenges them.
The continuing inefficiency and general feth wittedness of the Govt.s we have is one of the most compelling arguments for democracy IMO.
EDIT : I'm confused now
§ 11.002. QUALIFIED VOTER. In this code, "qualified
voter" means a person who:
(1) is 18 years of age or older;
(2) is a United States citizen;
(3) has not been determined mentally incompetent by a
final judgment of a court;
(4) has not been finally convicted of a felony or, if
so convicted, has:
(A) fully discharged the person's sentence,
including any term of incarceration, parole, or supervision, or
completed a period of probation ordered by any court; or
(B) been pardoned or otherwise released from the
resulting disability to vote;
(5) is a resident of this state; and
(6) is a registered voter.
I can sort of understand the "fear" of registration. We're constantly being bribed/threatened/cajoled with ID cards over here, and I'm agaisnt that.
Whilst, you know, having a National Insurance NUmber, birth certificate, utility bills, an IP address, and so on.
I just find it curious to see that people are on one hand convinced that THE EVIL GOVT. is covertly planning some astonishingly well planned and secret takeover whilst, at the same time , being crassly incompetent at everything. Hell they go through your stored credit card/similar records and follow you around for a week and they'll know 90% of what there is to know about you anytime they want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
reds8n wrote: Do you register to vote ?
I don't need to show ID to vote, strangely enough. What was that again you were saying?
Really ? You can just turn up and cast your vote at any polling station, presumably therefore any number of times can you ? So all those illegal immigrants do get to vote then ?
No I can literally show up and say I am the guy from next door. No id means I can do anything.
to the topic:
-I don’t have to register to say my mind (unless its on a college campus of course, in which case I can’t say what I want)
-I don’t have to register to be free from troops being quartered in my house
-I don’t have to register to avoid illegal searches and illegal seizures
-I don’t have to register to practice my faith or be free of a government sponsored faith
-I don’t have to register to be secure against ex poste facto laws or bills of attainder.
And so on and so on
Again, whats your point?
To the point. There are many, many who will view nationwide registration of firearms as a striking point. You are not from here so do not "get " what I am saying, which is understandable.
I am not going to go into it. But to many, registration is the stated point when the rights under the 2nd amendment are invoked. Seriously. I'm not saying I'm one. I don't care that much. I am saying there's a substantial portion of people who view that as 2nd revolution time.
As I stated, I for one welcome our new registrering warlords and resst assured that any firearms I may have are fully registered with the approrpiate authorities. Really, and no you can't look in the back yard thank you very much.
Frazzled wrote:No I can literally show up and say I am the guy from next door. No id means I can do anything.
to the topic:
-I don’t have to register to say my mind (unless its on a college campus of course, in which case I can’t say what I want)
-I don’t have to register to be free from troops being quartered in my house
-I don’t have to register to avoid illegal searches and illegal seizures
-I don’t have to register to practice my faith or be free of a government sponsored faith
-I don’t have to register to be secure against ex poste facto laws or bills of attainder.
And so on and so on
Again, whats your point?
Mr. Polonius summed it quite well..but..
to clarify do these rights apply to everyone then ? Or does it only apply to, you know, American Citizens ? And how do you work out if they are elligable for these rights ? Do they just "magically" know due to the aura USA peeps give off ? Or is it things like a birth certificate-- that things that REGISTERS your birth and nationality-- that help determine who gets them ?
Frazzled wrote:No I can literally show up and say I am the guy from next door. No id means I can do anything.
to the topic:
-I don’t have to register to say my mind (unless its on a college campus of course, in which case I can’t say what I want)
-I don’t have to register to be free from troops being quartered in my house
-I don’t have to register to avoid illegal searches and illegal seizures
-I don’t have to register to practice my faith or be free of a government sponsored faith
-I don’t have to register to be secure against ex poste facto laws or bills of attainder.
And so on and so on
Again, whats your point?
Mr. Polonius summed it quite well..but..
to clarify do these rights apply to everyone then ? Or does it only apply to, you know, American Citizens ? And how do you work out if they are elligable for these rights ? Do they just "magically" know due to the aura USA peeps give off ? Or is it things like a birth certificate-- that things that REGISTERS your birth and nationality-- that help determine who gets them ?
You're adding a strawman that is irrelevant to pretty much everything in this thread.
However, yep if you here those things apply to you uner the Equal Protection Clause (another thing you don't have to register for).
I don't see how registration prevents anyone from owning a firearm. That would be the point at which the 2nd Amendment is breeched. Anything else is legal chicanery.
If you're a law-abiding citizen with no record of mental illness who by any reasonable argument is responsible enough to own a firearm, what do you care if you have it Federally-registered?
Suppose it gets stolen and used in a crime. Perhaps knowing where the gun came from, where it was stolen from and when, may be of use to find the criminal.
Perhaps if all guns were strictly accounted for, it would be more difficult for them to fall into the wrong hands.
Gun shows should def. be closed down because they're not the only way to purchase guns. If it was the other way around then I could see resistance to closing the gun show loophole, but it's not.
There's nothing contrary to the 2nd Amendment in making sure that the people who own firearms ought to have them. Anyone with a criminal record should never be allowed to legally own a firearm (let the lawyers decide what severity of offense marks this line), anyone with a documented mental illness needs to be looked at extremely carefully before being allowed to own a firearm, and I am sure there are other reasonable criteria which I do not have the inclination to think hard about right now for gun ownership.
We make people get licenses to drive cars. Just having to get a license through demonstrating reasonable competence is not suppression of a right. What the pro-gun lobby doesn't seem to understand is that registration isn't a slippery slope, and it may actually *help* their cause in the long run. If pro-gun Americans can be seen coming to the table and being reasonable, a lot of the hysterical resistance to gun ownership on the Left will lose its steam and then seem unreasonable itself.
That will make it easier, not more difficult, for the right people to own guns.
Cairnius wrote:I don't see how registration prevents anyone from owning a firearm. That would be the point at which the 2nd Amendment is breeched. Anything else is legal chicanery.
If you're a law-abiding citizen with no record of mental illness who by any reasonable argument is responsible enough to own a firearm, what do you care if you have it Federally-registered?
Suppose it gets stolen and used in a crime. Perhaps knowing where the gun came from, where it was stolen from and when, may be of use to find the criminal.
Perhaps if all guns were strictly accounted for, it would be more difficult for them to fall into the wrong hands.
Gun shows should def. be closed down because they're not the only way to purchase guns. If it was the other way around then I could see resistance to closing the gun show loophole, but it's not.
There's nothing contrary to the 2nd Amendment in making sure that the people who own firearms ought to have them. Anyone with a criminal record should never be allowed to legally own a firearm (let the lawyers decide what severity of offense marks this line), anyone with a documented mental illness needs to be looked at extremely carefully before being allowed to own a firearm, and I am sure there are other reasonable criteria which I do not have the inclination to think hard about right now for gun ownership.
We make people get licenses to drive cars. Just having to get a license through demonstrating reasonable competence is not suppression of a right. What the pro-gun lobby doesn't seem to understand is that registration isn't a slippery slope, and it may actually *help* their cause in the long run. If pro-gun Americans can be seen coming to the table and being reasonable, a lot of the hysterical resistance to gun ownership on the Left will lose its steam and then seem unreasonable itself.
That will make it easier, not more difficult, for the right people to own guns.
Under what constitutional authority would the Federal Government have the right to register firearms by the way? just asking...
Frazzled wrote:
You're adding a strawman that is irrelevant to pretty much everything in this thread.
No, you are. You made the clearly spurious claim that if you register for something it, somehow, results in you losing the right to X/Y/Z. This is clearly BS, as we've shown, and you keep blowing more "chaff" in some bizarre elaborate defense of soemthing we're not even arguing against or about.
You have to register to vote : you have the right to vote. It's been that way for quiet some time. Sure there are illegal ways to get round things.. so what ? that's true for anything.
You have also provided a damning indictment of the political situation in Texas.... dubious elections esults in America.. nahh.. that'd never happen.
yep if you here those things apply to you uner the Equal Protection Clause (another thing you don't have to register for).
I'll bet that was of great consolation to the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Oh.. wait...
Frazzled wrote:Under what constitutional authority would the Federal Government have the right to register firearms by the way? just asking...
Under what constitutional authority do State governments have the right to make drivers get licenses? I don't know that either...but I know that if I'm caught driving without a license I'm going to pay a legal penalty for it...
I personally feel that the 2nd Amendment, while the nature of "milita-dom" is oft-debated, implies that the government has the power to regulate ownership and use of firearms. The right to bear arms isn't given in the 2nd Amendment as a blanket right independent of any responsibility, it's tied to military service.
While having militias ready to go on a moment's notice isn't a part of American life anymore, having to worry about lunatics and criminals getting their hands on concealable weapons and assault rifles that clever people can convert to fully-automatic weapons, or illegal automatic weapons on the black market, is certainly a part of our lives.
Again, it all comes down to this: if you're a law-abiding citizen, mentally stable, and a responsible adult, you have nothing to fear from firearms registration. It's not going to keep you from owning a handgun. It just lets the Federal government know that you have one, and would also provide a Federal check against felons and the insane owning firearms...and I can't think of any reasonable argument against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people.
Frazzled wrote:
You're adding a strawman that is irrelevant to pretty much everything in this thread.
No, you are. You made the clearly spurious claim that if you register for something it, somehow, results in you losing the right to X/Y/Z. This is clearly BS, as we've shown, and you keep blowing more "chaff" in some bizarre elaborate defense of soemthing we're not even arguing against or about.
You have to register to vote : you have the right to vote. It's been that way for quiet some time. Sure there are illegal ways to get round things.. so what ? that's true for anything.
You have also provided a damning indictment of the political situation in Texas.... dubious elections esults in America.. nahh.. that'd never happen.
yep if you here those things apply to you uner the Equal Protection Clause (another thing you don't have to register for).
I'll bet that was of great consolation to the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Oh.. wait...
1. Thats nationwide. Blame Congress for having open borders and then making it so they can vote without much problem.
Its pretty much invalidated my right of enfranchisement so iI reject your registration claim. The fact there is no verification vitiates the right.
2. Gitmo
em. Put them in a ship to trnasfer them then torpedo the ship. Woops sorry. Sucks to be you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Under what constitutional authority do State governments have the right to make drivers get licenses? I don't know that either...but I know that if I'm caught driving without a license I'm going to pay a legal penalty for it...
****All rights not specifically stated are reserved to the States. Seriously. reading a book helps.
I personally feel that the 2nd Amendment, while the nature of "milita-dom" is oft-debated, implies that the government has the power to regulate ownership and use of firearms. The right to bear arms isn't given in the 2nd Amendment as a blanket right independent of any responsibility, it's tied to military service.
****Militia is defined as all able body male citizens FYI so it vitiates your argument.
While having militias ready to go on a moment's notice isn't a part of American life anymore, having to worry about lunatics and criminals getting their hands on concealable weapons and assault rifles that clever people can convert to fully-automatic weapons, or illegal automatic weapons on the black market, is certainly a part of our lives.
****You're right. We should ban knives and cars too as they are freely available for lunatics and criminals to get their hands on it.
Congrats, you're the first person I've put on ignore in a long long time.
Frazzled wrote:Under what constitutional authority would the Federal Government have the right to register firearms by the way? just asking...
Under what constitutional authority do State governments have the right to make drivers get licenses? I don't know that either...but I know that if I'm caught driving without a license I'm going to pay a legal penalty for it...
I personally feel that the 2nd Amendment, while the nature of "milita-dom" is oft-debated, implies that the government has the power to regulate ownership and use of firearms. The right to bear arms isn't given in the 2nd Amendment as a blanket right independent of any responsibility, it's tied to military service.
While having militias ready to go on a moment's notice isn't a part of American life anymore, having to worry about lunatics and criminals getting their hands on concealable weapons and assault rifles that clever people can convert to fully-automatic weapons, or illegal automatic weapons on the black market, is certainly a part of our lives.
Again, it all comes down to this: if you're a law-abiding citizen, mentally stable, and a responsible adult, you have nothing to fear from firearms registration. It's not going to keep you from owning a handgun. It just lets the Federal government know that you have one, and would also provide a Federal check against felons and the insane owning firearms...and I can't think of any reasonable argument against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people.
Personally I believe we still should have militias, for two reasons:
1) WTF are we gonna do if somebody invades our counrty? Yes, we have national gurad police etc. but I myself want to have a little protection incase some foriegn soldier kicks my door down
2) governments should fear their citizens, not the other way around
Also, have you heard of the "no fly" list? They wouldn't let a damn 5 year old get on a plane because his name matched a name on this list. Anyone suspected of being a terrorist or aiding a terrorist or basically anyone who's name matches one on this list cannot fly on a plane. They're now in the process of making anyone on this list unable to buy guns.
Frazzled wrote:Under what constitutional authority would the Federal Government have the right to register firearms by the way? just asking...
Under what constitutional authority do State governments have the right to make drivers get licenses? I don't know that either...but I know that if I'm caught driving without a license I'm going to pay a legal penalty for it...
I personally feel that the 2nd Amendment, while the nature of "milita-dom" is oft-debated, implies that the government has the power to regulate ownership and use of firearms. The right to bear arms isn't given in the 2nd Amendment as a blanket right independent of any responsibility, it's tied to military service.
While having militias ready to go on a moment's notice isn't a part of American life anymore, having to worry about lunatics and criminals getting their hands on concealable weapons and assault rifles that clever people can convert to fully-automatic weapons, or illegal automatic weapons on the black market, is certainly a part of our lives.
Again, it all comes down to this: if you're a law-abiding citizen, mentally stable, and a responsible adult, you have nothing to fear from firearms registration. It's not going to keep you from owning a handgun. It just lets the Federal government know that you have one, and would also provide a Federal check against felons and the insane owning firearms...and I can't think of any reasonable argument against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people.
I think the prevalence of these "lunatics and criminals" is overstated. How often does one of these incidents happen? How frequently are semiautomatic rifles used in crimes? Are illegal weapons on the "black market" really that much of a problem for most of America? Who are these clever people who are converting weapons to fully automatic. It certinaly can be done, but it requires parts and know-how, and you're busted big time when you get caught. People do get in trouble from this, so the system is working.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Norwulf wrote:
Cairnius wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Under what constitutional authority would the Federal Government have the right to register firearms by the way? just asking...
Under what constitutional authority do State governments have the right to make drivers get licenses? I don't know that either...but I know that if I'm caught driving without a license I'm going to pay a legal penalty for it...
I personally feel that the 2nd Amendment, while the nature of "milita-dom" is oft-debated, implies that the government has the power to regulate ownership and use of firearms. The right to bear arms isn't given in the 2nd Amendment as a blanket right independent of any responsibility, it's tied to military service.
While having militias ready to go on a moment's notice isn't a part of American life anymore, having to worry about lunatics and criminals getting their hands on concealable weapons and assault rifles that clever people can convert to fully-automatic weapons, or illegal automatic weapons on the black market, is certainly a part of our lives.
Again, it all comes down to this: if you're a law-abiding citizen, mentally stable, and a responsible adult, you have nothing to fear from firearms registration. It's not going to keep you from owning a handgun. It just lets the Federal government know that you have one, and would also provide a Federal check against felons and the insane owning firearms...and I can't think of any reasonable argument against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people.
Personally I believe we still should have militias, for two reasons:
1) WTF are we gonna do if somebody invades our counrty? Yes, we have national gurad police etc. but I myself want to have a little protection incase some foriegn soldier kicks my door down
2) governments should fear their citizens, not the other way around
Also, have you heard of the "no fly" list? They wouldn't let a damn 5 year old get on a plane because his name matched a name on this list. Anyone suspected of being a terrorist or aiding a terrorist or basically anyone who's name matches one on this list cannot fly on a plane. They're now in the process of making anyone on this list unable to buy guns.
I don't think it is a matter of fear on anyone's part. I look at it as a social contract between law abiding citizens and a benevolent government.
The thing about the no fly list is terrible. Frankly I think most of this national security fear that is going on is just that, fear. I believe we live in a climate of fear that doesn't necessarily have a basis in actual fact.
@grignard:
I wouldn't call our government benevolent, or any government for that matter. But I don't think it's manevolent either. It's more in the light shade of grey category IMO.
I wonder why this topic gets brought up so much on these boards. I mean, I've rarely seen it come up on the OT boards of other sites I frequent, like the EQII boards.
It's not that registration will immediately and irrevocably lead to confiscation, it's that it may. It wouldn't be the first time, nor the last, that a government has seen a dramatic shift in idealology and methodology. The Founding Fathers knew that power corrupts, and did their best to build in checks and balances, the 2nd ammendment being the first and foremost of these. They also built in a system whereby the people, if they so choose, could allow these checks and balances to be modified and changed, up to, and including , our basic rights.
Having my guns and keeping them, and keeping them unregistered enables me to disagree in an effective manner, with any policy I deem oppressive and life threatening. Does this mean I have a right to go to war over whether my street is paved with asphalt, or recycled rubber (for example)? Yes it does. Does it mean I should? Probably not. But the fact is, if we as a people decide that all streets in the U.S. are to be paved with recycled rubber, and the government refuses, then we have the right and the ability to enforce our will on the government.
This I think is the difference between the U.S. and the rest of the democracies of the global community. AFAIK we're the only government that started as one. Our nation was literally born of the people enforcing their will on their government. We weren't granted or conceded our independence, we took it. An armed citizenry is essential for this ability. It's a fundamental part of our national identity, and therefore is a lot more important to a lot more of our populace than the norm.
Frazzled wrote:****All rights not specifically stated are reserved to the States. Seriously. reading a book helps.
Reading for context helps, too...I suppose I took it for granted that you understood that States regulate driver's licenses and that therefore the constitutions I was referring to, note the lowercase "c," were State constitutions.
Therefore, spelling this out to you could have been interpreted as an insult to your intelligence. Duly noted. I will not be so vague next time. My fault for assuming...
My thinking was that whatever legal justifications exist at the State level for regulating drivers may exist at the Federal level for regulating firearms due to the clear mandate for some sort of regulation per the 2nd Amendment. I'm not a lawyer, not do I pretend or wish to be. Ask one of them.
Frazzled wrote:****Militia is defined as all able body male citizens FYI so it vitiates your argument.
We had this conversation a while ago. There is no modern definition of "militia" which we could come up with here.
And you realize that your argument only supports regulation? What's "able-bodied" Who measures it? Don't we have to keep track of that, then? If it's tied to military service, doesn't the chain of command begin at the Federal level? So, if firearm ownership is tied to the potential for militia duty, and only able bodied males can serve in the militia, then:
A) The Federal government should be preventing anyone other than able bodied men from owning firearms.
B) The Federal government should be registering all the able bodied men specifically, which means Selective Service doesn't cut it because you don't pass physical exams to register. I certainly didn't. And in the modern world, psych evaluations are just as important. So now, Frazz, you have the Federal government conducting physical and psychological examinations upon all American men when they reach the age where they have to register with the Selective Service.
Just everyone remember that this was conservative Frazz's idea, not mine.
Frazzled wrote:****You're right. We should ban knives and cars too as they are freely available for lunatics and criminals to get their hands on it.
Congrats, you're the first person I've put on ignore in a long long time.
Sure you did...and comparing knives and cars to firearms is so immensely slowed that it makes me question your intelligence more than anything you've ever said.
Cairnius wrote:
Sure you did...and comparing knives and cars to firearms is so immensely slowed that it makes me question your intelligence more than anything you've ever said.
Why is it so slowed? If you're talking about causes of death and injury it is worth at least looking at.
I'd imagine any Federal gun registration law would simply be passed under modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
There really isn't enough federal case law to determine the extent of 2nd Amendment protections. Analogized directly to the 1st and 4th, it would seem that almost any restrictions would be unconstitutional. Taking a more historical, originalist approach would be to see how the Framers saw gun ownership, and when/where those rights could be denied.
The 1st amendment is held nearly inviolable, particularly for core political speech, primarily because it was seen as a huge concern for the framers.
The 2nd amendment seems less clear, although I'd imagine the framers saw a pretty absolute right to hunting and self defense weapons.
I could see a requirement to register long arms, for hunting and sport, possibly being struck down. Handguns get trickier. Even the 1st amendment doesn't allow speech to hurt or restrict another, and you famously can't yell fire in a theater. There are governmental interests that can outweigh personal rights.
There is also a textual argument for distinguishing the 1st and 2nd amendments. the 1st says that " Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," while the 2nd "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". In addition the fourth says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
The bill of rights offers a blanket protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and says that freedom of speech shall not be abridged, while it says that the right to bear arms shall not be impaired. It's a bit of a philosophical question to ask if registration would impair the right bear arms.
There are also areas where there are regulations on 1st amendment activities, particularly when they intersect with the rights of others. Parades and rallys usually need to be registered, and place/time/manner restrictions are almost never held to abridge the right to free speech.
So, the question for the court would be if gun ownership is a completely protected core right that cannot be regulated at all, or if there are valid governmental interests in registration. It's actually a pretty interesting legal question.
If I were to take a guess, I'd say that the ruling would probably be that "traditional" arms, things like rifles and shotguns, needn't be registered, both because they enjoy greater 2nd amendment protection and because there is less governmental interest in regulating them. How many crimes are committed with a hunting rifle? I could see the court allowing a regulation scheme for handguns and modern military weapons, for the opposites of the reasons above.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lordhat wrote:
The Founding Fathers knew that power corrupts, and did their best to build in checks and balances, the 2nd ammendment being the first and foremost of these.
Well, it's second, and second most. The Framers were nuts about the 1st amendment, while the 2nd was kind of tossed in there. Not that the numbers have an relation to importance.
It's not that I disagree with your posts, but the framers, while possibly not even considering that gun rights would be seriously challenged, were far more concerned about the power of the government over religion, speech, and the press.
Give the weak powers of the Federal government at the time, I'm not sure under what power Congress could even regulate arms.
Do you honestly need someone to explain to you how equating firearms to knives and cars is slowed?
Gun - I point it at you, I pull the trigger. You are shot. When I fired a gun for the first time, what I came away from it with was the thought of just how EASY it was. Given, I play a lot of FPS games...but if I wanted someone dead and had a firearm, no problem. Pull the trigger, see them fall, maybe pop a few more shots in them, walk away. I don't see the mess, the aftermath, or anything. Very easy, very clean (for me).
Knife - you're in someone's face. You're more in danger of retaliation if the person knows how to fight. You can disarm someone with a knife at close range if you know what you're doing. If someone holds a gun on you at 10 feet with the intent to shoot you I sincerely hope you are extremely quick, they are an extremely bad shot, and you have some effective cover very close to you.
The person doing the knife-fighting is going to get your blood all over them. They're going to have to look in your eyes as they finish the job, or at least get a nice, up-close view of the gore. It's not as sanitized as a gun. It's more difficult to use effectively. Not much, but more.
Car - First of all, wear your seat belt, purchase a safe vehicle, follow the rules of the road and even if you do get into an accident, you are likely to be okay. Much more likely than not. Crash-resistant modern designs, crumpling, air bags...
A gun or a knife in the sorts of situations we're describing are being specifically-wielded to injure or kill. I don't remember the last time I heard about someone with murderous intent getting behind the wheel of their Honda and attempting to go Grand Theft Auto on the sidewalk...
I'm sure it happens somewhere, or has happened, but it's a severe aberration. Cars are accidental instruments of homicide/injury, not intentional ones. They're not designed for it.
Also, Frazz's statement isn't well thought-out on a whole 'nuther plane...what would be wrong with keeping machetes out of felon's hands? Nothing. And we DO prevent certain kinds of criminals from driving cars. Get enough DUI's on your record and you're not driving legally for a very long time, if ever again.
Cairnius wrote:Do you honestly need someone to explain to you how equating firearms to knives and cars is slowed?
Gun - I point it at you, I pull the trigger. You are shot. When I fired a gun for the first time, what I came away from it was the thought of just how EASY it was. Given, I play a lot of FPS games...but if I wanted someone dead and had a firearm, no problem. Pull the trigger, see them fall, maybe pop a few more shots in them, walk away. I don't see the mess, the aftermath, or anything. Very easy, very clean (for me).
Knife - you're in someone's face. You're more in danger of retaliation if the person knows how to fight. You can disarm someone with a knife at close range if you know what you're doing. If someone holds a gun on you at 10 feet with the intent to shoot you I sincerely hope you are extremely quick, they are an extremely bad shot, and you have some effective cover very close to you.
The person doing the knife-fighting is going to get your blood all over them. They're going to have to look in your eyes as they finish the job, or at least get a nice, up-close view of the gore. It's not as sanitized as a gun. It's more difficult to use effectively. Not much, but more.
Car - First of all, wear your seat belt, purchase a safe vehicle, follow the rules of the road and even if you do get into an accident, you are likely to be okay. Much more likely than not. Crash-resistant modern designs, crumpling, air bags...
A gun or a knife in the sorts of situations we're describing are being specifically-wielded to injure or kill. I don't remember the last time I heard about someone with murderous intent getting behind the wheel of their Honda and attempting to go Grand Theft Auto on the sidewalk...
I'm sure it happens somewhere, or has happened, but it's a severe aberration. Cars are accidental instruments of homicide/injury, not intentional ones. They're not designed for it.
Also, Frazz's statement isn't well thought-out on a whole 'nuther plane...what would be wrong with keeping machetes out of felon's hands? Nothing. And we DO prevent certain kinds of criminals from driving cars. Get enough DUI's on your record and you're not driving legally for a very long time, if ever again.
No, I didn't feel anything approximating what you felt when I first fired a weapon. I felt like I was having a good time shooting at the range.
Do you have any experience to back up your opinions on the experience of shooting someone versus shanking them or are you just making that up?
Edit: Thinking over it again, have you ever shot any living thing at all? I have, and it doesn't look at all sanitized or easy.
Cairnius wrote:
We had this conversation a while ago. There is no modern definition of "militia" which we could come up with here.
Read: there is no modern definition of militia which favors my argument.
Cairnius wrote:
Sure you did...and comparing knives and cars to firearms is so immensely slowed that it makes me question your intelligence more than anything you've ever said.
Cairnius wrote:Do you honestly need someone to explain to you how equating firearms to knives and cars is slowed?
Gun - I point it at you, I pull the trigger. You are shot. When I fired a gun for the first time, what I came away from it was the thought of just how EASY it was. Given, I play a lot of FPS games...but if I wanted someone dead and had a firearm, no problem. Pull the trigger, see them fall, maybe pop a few more shots in them, walk away. I don't see the mess, the aftermath, or anything. Very easy, very clean (for me).
Knife - you're in someone's face. You're more in danger of retaliation if the person knows how to fight. You can disarm someone with a knife at close range if you know what you're doing. If someone holds a gun on you at 10 feet with the intent to shoot you I sincerely hope you are extremely quick, they are an extremely bad shot, and you have some effective cover very close to you.
The person doing the knife-fighting is going to get your blood all over them. They're going to have to look in your eyes as they finish the job, or at least get a nice, up-close view of the gore. It's not as sanitized as a gun. It's more difficult to use effectively. Not much, but more.
Car - First of all, wear your seat belt, purchase a safe vehicle, follow the rules of the road and even if you do get into an accident, you are likely to be okay. Much more likely than not. Crash-resistant modern designs, crumpling, air bags...
A gun or a knife in the sorts of situations we're describing are being specifically-wielded to injure or kill. I don't remember the last time I heard about someone with murderous intent getting behind the wheel of their Honda and attempting to go Grand Theft Auto on the sidewalk...
I'm sure it happens somewhere, or has happened, but it's a severe aberration. Cars are accidental instruments of homicide/injury, not intentional ones. They're not designed for it.
Also, Frazz's statement isn't well thought-out on a whole 'nuther plane...what would be wrong with keeping machetes out of felon's hands? Nothing. And we DO prevent certain kinds of criminals from driving cars. Get enough DUI's on your record and you're not driving legally for a very long time, if ever again.
No, I didn't feel anything approximating what you felt when I first fired a weapon. I felt like I was having a good time shooting at the range.
Do you have any experience to back up your opinions on the experience of shooting someone versus shanking them or are you just making that up?
Edit: Thinking over it again, have you ever shot any living thing at all? I have, and it doesn't look at all sanitized or easy.
You don't need personal experience.
You only need to read some military histories, particularly the seminal work done in WW2 and afterwards regarding the behaviour of soldiers in combat, to realise that shooting people does not come easily and naturally, and stabbing them is even more difficult.
Polonius wrote:I could see a requirement to register long arms, for hunting and sport, possibly being struck down. Handguns get trickier. Even the 1st amendment doesn't allow speech to hurt or restrict another, and you famously can't yell fire in a theater. There are governmental interests that can outweigh personal rights.
See, I never liked this line of thinking. The biggest reason guns are supposedly so bad isn't that they motivate people to attack each other more, but that they increase the lethality of conflict. Which makes sense, certainly.
However, a shot from a rifle is more lethal than a shot from most handguns are, and a shot from a shotgun is even worse. Furthermore, handguns are the easiest type of weapon to smuggle illegally; a career criminal is likely going to end up owning one regardless, and they're going to be getting the most use out of it.
Most crimes now aren't committed with a rifle, but I think things could change sharply if getting a long gun (which can be cut down too, if necessary) became far easier than getting a handgun.
I get what you're saying with the original intent of the amendment thing, though.
Cairnius wrote:It's not as sanitized as a gun. It's more difficult to use effectively. Not much, but more.
While a knife isn't going to be as easy to kill someone with as a gun (and might be more psychologically difficult to use, but we're already talking about a murderer), a knife is actually a better murder weapon a lot of the time. It's a lot more difficult to trace a knife wound back to the killer than it is to trace a shot back to him. What makes the gun "sanitized" also helps to make it predictable.
Long arms are better for hunting, militia duty, and according to most experts I've read, home defense. If you look to the core of the 2nd amendment, I think those three aspects make banning long arms impossible, and regulating them subject to strict scrutiny (a legal term of art that requires any law violating that right to serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be no more restrictive than is necessary). I could see a court deciding that the need to regulate handguns allows for a nationwide registry, based on crime and the like.
Grignard wrote:Do you have any experience to back up your opinions on the experience of shooting someone versus shanking them or are you just making that up?
Edit: Thinking over it again, have you ever shot any living thing at all? I have, and it doesn't look at all sanitized or easy.
Thank Christ I have no experience shooting anyone. All I can do is visualize the results, and it's not that difficult to do. Killing from range versus killing up close. Blood and guts versus not sticking around to see it. If you have an argument that a killing with a knife is less sanitized than killing with a gun at range, by all means present it. Otherwise, you have no argument with me.
And thank Christ again that no, I have no experience shooting a living thing. I do not have to hunt for my food because I live in a major metropolis and I have no need to defend my home.
Kilkrazy wrote:shooting people does not come easily and naturally, and stabbing them is even more difficult.
You're validating my point, then. Stabbing is more difficult, as well as much more messy...therefore I fail to see how equating the two makes any sense and isn't slowed.
Polonius wrote:I could see a requirement to register long arms, for hunting and sport, possibly being struck down. Handguns get trickier. Even the 1st amendment doesn't allow speech to hurt or restrict another, and you famously can't yell fire in a theater. There are governmental interests that can outweigh personal rights.
See, I never liked this line of thinking. The biggest reason guns are supposedly so bad isn't that they motivate people to attack each other more, but that they increase the lethality of conflict. Which makes sense, certainly.
However, a shot from a rifle is more lethal than a shot from most handguns are, and a shot from a shotgun is even worse. Furthermore, handguns are the easiest type of weapon to smuggle illegally; a career criminal is likely going to end up owning one regardless, and they're going to be getting the most use out of it.
Most crimes now aren't committed with a rifle, but I think things could change sharply if getting a long gun (which can be cut down too, if necessary) became far easier than getting a handgun.
I get what you're saying with the original intent of the amendment thing, though.
Cairnius wrote:It's not as sanitized as a gun. It's more difficult to use effectively. Not much, but more.
While a knife isn't going to be as easy to kill someone with as a gun (and might be more psychologically difficult to use, but we're already talking about a murderer), a knife is actually a better murder weapon a lot of the time. It's a lot more difficult to trace a knife wound back to the killer than it is to trace a shot back to him. What makes the gun "sanitized" also helps to make it predictable.
Depending on what you mean by easier, it could be argued that it is already easier to get a long arm as opposed to a handgun. For instance, the age requirement for purchasing a rifle is 18, while handguns are 21.
Actually, for that matter, registering for handguns might not do that much to the ability for criminals to get them, in which case I suppose it wouldn't make much of a difference.
It's a large gap between the two that seems like a bad idea; and you do get a lot of groups that want to ban handguns completely and the like, while theoretically not opposing long guns nearly as much.
I actually think that rifles and shotguns are what I am least concerned about. Handguns are #1 because they're easy to conceal and explicitly designed for use against human beings. Assault rifles would be #2 because they are designed explicitly to kill human beings.
Rifles and shotguns have extremely legitimate uses for hunting. I still think that criminal records should be clean and psych evals should be clean as well (not that I would conduct them on people who want firearms but perhaps that could be part of the check, to see if said evals already exist) for anyone who wants to own any sort of firearm, but restrictions for rifles and shotguns should never be as stringent as for handguns and assault rifles.
Grignard wrote:Do you have any experience to back up your opinions on the experience of shooting someone versus shanking them or are you just making that up?
Edit: Thinking over it again, have you ever shot any living thing at all? I have, and it doesn't look at all sanitized or easy.
Thank Christ I have no experience shooting anyone. All I can do is visualize the results, and it's not that difficult to do. Killing from range versus killing up close. Blood and guts versus not sticking around to see it. If you have an argument that a killing with a knife is less sanitized than killing with a gun at range, by all means present it. Otherwise, you have no argument with me.
And thank Christ again that no, I have no experience shooting a living thing. I do not have to hunt for my food because I live in a major metropolis and I have no need to defend my home.
Yes, thank God you live in a sophisticated city and don't have to do something as terrible and unnatural as hunt. I'm also glad you feel that you don't need to defend your home. Perhaps everyone doesn't feel as secure as you do.
Cairnius wrote: I live in a major metropolis
This is your problem in understanding right here.
Kilkrazy wrote:shooting people does not come easily and naturally, and stabbing them is even more difficult.
You're validating my point, then. Stabbing is more difficult, as well as much more messy...therefore I fail to see how equating the two makes any sense and isn't slowed.
Probably because he was not arguing with you. Just because you can support your argument doesn't mean the other opinion is inherently "slowed".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cairnius wrote:I actually think that rifles and shotguns are what I am least concerned about. Handguns are #1 because they're easy to conceal and explicitly designed for use against human beings. Assault rifles would be #2 because they are designed explicitly to kill human beings.
Rifles and shotguns have extremely legitimate uses for hunting. I still think that criminal records should be clean and psych evals should be clean as well (not that I would conduct them on people who want firearms but perhaps that could be part of the check, to see if said evals already exist) for anyone who wants to own any sort of firearm, but restrictions for rifles and shotguns should never be as stringent as for handguns and assault rifles.
They aren't as stringent as for handguns. I don't know what you're calling an assault rifle, so I can't help you there.
Polonius wrote:Long arms are better for hunting, militia duty, and according to most experts I've read, home defense. If you look to the core of the 2nd amendment, I think those three aspects make banning long arms impossible, and regulating them subject to strict scrutiny (a legal term of art that requires any law violating that right to serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be no more restrictive than is necessary). I could see a court deciding that the need to regulate handguns allows for a nationwide registry, based on crime and the like.
Pistols are better for home offense vs. long guns. You can't negotiate the corners very well.
Most crimes now aren't committed with a rifle, but I think things could change sharply if getting a long gun (which can be cut down too, if necessary) became far easier than getting a handgun.
The Bushmaster Carbon 15 Type 21S pistol has top of the line features of the popular Type 97S rifle in a package that weighs less than three and a half pounds. The upper and lower receivers are molded of state of the art Carbon Fiber 15 material that offers incredible durability, strength and ultra-light weight. The pistol’s 7 1/4" stainless steel, match grade barrel is chambered for the 5.56 NATO cartridge and readily accepts the .223 Remington cartridge as well.
The P21S Upper Receiver features a full length anodized aluminum Picatinny rail that includes integral front and rear iron sights. The windage adjustable rear sight is a combination ghost ring and precision aperture flip-up. The square post front sights offers elevation adjustments for fine zeroing. The Picatinny rail allows the option of mounting a wide variety of auxiliary sighting systems such as long eye relief and standard scopes, red dot, holographic, or laser sights. The front and rear sling swivel studs allow for the secure attachment of slings and other accessories. Function controls on the Type 21S are in the familiar AR15 layout, and for additional safety, the safety selector lever markings are color coded on both sides of the lower receiver to quickly determine the firing status of the pistol.
Completely designed and manufactured in the U.S.A., the Bushmaster C15 Type 21S Pistol is shipped with Operator’s Manual, Warranty Card and 30 Round Magazine.
Well, I'm basing my assumption on my understanding of con law and the current make up of the court. With Kennedy as the swing man, I'm sure we'll want to write a nice juicy opinion, and create some layered rules.
Look at the 1st amendment. There are things that are almost impossible to regulate, like political speech that's not disruptive (pamplets and the like). There are things that almost nobody thinks should count as protected speech (child porn, libel). There are also things that can be regulated, but only within reason (advertisements).
It's most likely that arms will develop the same hierarchy. You'll have stuff that is core and is most protected (hunting/militia long arms). You have stuff that nobody would include (artillery, grenade launchers, etc). And then a big gooey middle (hand guns, assault rifles). That gooey middle might be simply divided between the two piles (handguns are core, uzis and assault rifles are not), or they might create a new way of treating them. Allowing regulation, but not bans.
Most likely, the court will simply not take another 2nd amendment case for a while.
Polonius wrote:Long arms are better for hunting, militia duty, and according to most experts I've read, home defense. If you look to the core of the 2nd amendment, I think those three aspects make banning long arms impossible, and regulating them subject to strict scrutiny (a legal term of art that requires any law violating that right to serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be no more restrictive than is necessary). I could see a court deciding that the need to regulate handguns allows for a nationwide registry, based on crime and the like.
Pistols are better for home offense vs. long guns. You can't negotiate the corners very well.
I've read compelling arguments for both. Some of the factors for shotguns is that they can blow through walls, don't need to be accurate, and scare the living hell out of intruders more than any pistol, both by sight and by sound.
There are advantages for pistols, no doubt. They're easier to maneuver, they can be hid and stored a lot easier, they have a higher rate of fire, etc.
The rule of thumb I'd read was that unless you're skilled with a pistol, and don't need glasses/contacts that not be available at night, the shotgun is the better bet most of the time.
Polonius wrote:Long arms are better for hunting, militia duty, and according to most experts I've read, home defense. If you look to the core of the 2nd amendment, I think those three aspects make banning long arms impossible, and regulating them subject to strict scrutiny (a legal term of art that requires any law violating that right to serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be no more restrictive than is necessary). I could see a court deciding that the need to regulate handguns allows for a nationwide registry, based on crime and the like.
Pistols are better for home offense vs. long guns. You can't negotiate the corners very well.
I've read compelling arguments for both. Some of the factors for shotguns is that they can blow through walls, don't need to be accurate, and scare the living hell out of intruders more than any pistol, both by sight and by sound.
There are advantages for pistols, no doubt. They're easier to maneuver, they can be hid and stored a lot easier, they have a higher rate of fire, etc.
The rule of thumb I'd read was that unless you're skilled with a pistol, and don't need glasses/contacts that not be available at night, the shotgun is the better bet most of the time.
I'm not sure I buy the argument about shotguns blowing through walls. It depends on what kind of ammunition you're using, in the case of both pistols and shotguns. I think that is something you definitely don't want in that sort of situation anyway. You don't want something penetrating a wall and striking someone you don't intend to hit on the other side. In fact, they manufacture frangible ammunition to reduce the chances of penetrating a wall.
Polonius wrote:Well, I'm basing my assumption on my understanding of con law and the current make up of the court. With Kennedy as the swing man, I'm sure we'll want to write a nice juicy opinion, and create some layered rules.
Look at the 1st amendment. There are things that are almost impossible to regulate, like political speech that's not disruptive (pamplets and the like). There are things that almost nobody thinks should count as protected speech (child porn, libel). There are also things that can be regulated, but only within reason (advertisements).
It's most likely that arms will develop the same hierarchy. You'll have stuff that is core and is most protected (hunting/militia long arms). You have stuff that nobody would include (artillery, grenade launchers, etc). And then a big gooey middle (hand guns, assault rifles). That gooey middle might be simply divided between the two piles (handguns are core, uzis and assault rifles are not), or they might create a new way of treating them. Allowing regulation, but not bans.
Most likely, the court will simply not take another 2nd amendment case for a while.
Are your referring to the case the Supremes took this week Polonius?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grignard wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Polonius wrote:Long arms are better for hunting, militia duty, and according to most experts I've read, home defense. If you look to the core of the 2nd amendment, I think those three aspects make banning long arms impossible, and regulating them subject to strict scrutiny (a legal term of art that requires any law violating that right to serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be no more restrictive than is necessary). I could see a court deciding that the need to regulate handguns allows for a nationwide registry, based on crime and the like.
Pistols are better for home offense vs. long guns. You can't negotiate the corners very well.
I've read compelling arguments for both. Some of the factors for shotguns is that they can blow through walls, don't need to be accurate, and scare the living hell out of intruders more than any pistol, both by sight and by sound.
There are advantages for pistols, no doubt. They're easier to maneuver, they can be hid and stored a lot easier, they have a higher rate of fire, etc.
The rule of thumb I'd read was that unless you're skilled with a pistol, and don't need glasses/contacts that not be available at night, the shotgun is the better bet most of the time.
In a house context the the shotgun spread is only about 2-3 inches. You still have to aim it.
I'm not sure I buy the argument about shotguns blowing through walls. It depends on what kind of ammunition you're using, in the case of both pistols and shotguns. I think that is something you definitely don't want in that sort of situation anyway. You don't want something penetrating a wall and striking someone you don't intend to hit on the other side. In fact, they manufacture frangible ammunition to reduce the chances of penetrating a wall.
Most crimes now aren't committed with a rifle, but I think things could change sharply if getting a long gun (which can be cut down too, if necessary) became far easier than getting a handgun.
The Bushmaster Carbon 15 Type 21S pistol has top of the line features of the popular Type 97S rifle in a package that weighs less than three and a half pounds. The upper and lower receivers are molded of state of the art Carbon Fiber 15 material that offers incredible durability, strength and ultra-light weight. The pistol’s 7 1/4" stainless steel, match grade barrel is chambered for the 5.56 NATO cartridge and readily accepts the .223 Remington cartridge as well.
The P21S Upper Receiver features a full length anodized aluminum Picatinny rail that includes integral front and rear iron sights. The windage adjustable rear sight is a combination ghost ring and precision aperture flip-up. The square post front sights offers elevation adjustments for fine zeroing. The Picatinny rail allows the option of mounting a wide variety of auxiliary sighting systems such as long eye relief and standard scopes, red dot, holographic, or laser sights. The front and rear sling swivel studs allow for the secure attachment of slings and other accessories. Function controls on the Type 21S are in the familiar AR15 layout, and for additional safety, the safety selector lever markings are color coded on both sides of the lower receiver to quickly determine the firing status of the pistol.
Completely designed and manufactured in the U.S.A., the Bushmaster C15 Type 21S Pistol is shipped with Operator’s Manual, Warranty Card and 30 Round Magazine.
I'd use this for home defense. A lot safer than a guy that sprays out lots of bullets in a short time.
Shoot anyone with this and they won't get back up, EVER.
Shoot anyone with this and they won't get back up, EVER.
I'm not sure about that. The question is going to be whether you can find a round for that .223 that won't over penetrate and kill someone on the other side of your target or a wall.
EDIT: That goes double for that .500 smith. Thats a pistol hunting gun there.
Nearest house to mine and my bros is 200yds through the woods. The odds of the round going through someone, out the wall and making it 200yds at a lethal enough velocity to hurt someone else is nearly non-existent.
Fateweaver wrote:Nearest house to mine and my bros is 200yds through the woods. The odds of the round going through someone, out the wall and making it 200yds at a lethal enough velocity to hurt someone else is nearly non-existent.
I'll hand it to you it is unlikely, even with a jacketed round, but within the realm of possibility. To me the question is do you want to gamble your freedom or someone else's life on it. Me, if I was going to keep a weapon loaded for defense, I'd go for a lot less penetration. THats my opinion though, and I do seriously doubt it would be a problem.
Fateweaver wrote:Nearest house to mine and my bros is 200yds through the woods. The odds of the round going through someone, out the wall and making it 200yds at a lethal enough velocity to hurt someone else is nearly non-existent.
Grignard wrote:Yes, thank God you live in a sophisticated city and don't have to do something as terrible and unnatural as hunt. I'm also glad you feel that you don't need to defend your home. Perhaps everyone doesn't feel as secure as you do.
Hey, I have no problem with hunting. I just said that...and aren't shotguns the best home defense weapon, anyway? I have no problem with shotgun ownership, either.
Just because I live in a city now doesn't mean I always did.
Kilkrazy wrote:Probably because he was not arguing with you. Just because you can support your argument doesn't mean the other opinion is inherently "slowed".
No, Frazz was doing the equating, saying that we should take knives and cars away from people because they kill people just like guns do. That's what was slowed.
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't know what you're calling an assault rifle, so I can't help you there.
I should probably say "assault rifles and submachine guns," to be precise, in terms of what needs heavy regulation.
See, gun-nuts would say "Oh, we need these weapons so we can fight the gov'ment!" But that's ridiculous. If it ever came down to a bunch of yahoos with commercially-available firearms versus the United States military, the civilians would get slaughtered. You don't actually have "the ability to resist an oppressive government" through firearm ownership anymore. Those days are long, long past us.
Really the only firearms I know are WW II firearms from historical interest, and the most popularized modern weaponry from movies and video games. I'm not "into guns," but I'm aware of the basic categorizations and what they're designed to do. I don't think any American who is into action movies and FPS games doesn't.
Unlike some of my FPS counterparts, however, I hold precisely zero illusions about having any sort of expertise. I did know how to load and fire WW II weapons, however, when I went to a shooting range in Vegas. A .45 is a hand cannon, a Thompson has good kick and sounds awesome, a Sten felt like it would break if you dropped it in a pile of dirt, and an MP40 reminded me how stupid it is when movies have the Germans holding them by the magazine and it purred like a Porsche.
If I ever go back to said shooting range, I'm just buying like 10 magazines' worth of MP40 ammo and going to town. No BAR at the place, though. I was very disappointed.
One thing I have come to realize over the years of having these conversations in many places...gun ownership is academic to me. I don't own them, failing the rise of a zombie apocalypse don't care to own one, and could really care less unless, when and if, some criminal comes after me with one, in which I would only feel more solidified in my basic thinking that guns should be strictly regulated.
In that case, I'd probably change from my current position to thinking that handguns and assault rifles should not only be utterly banned from civilian ownership, but that illegal possession of them should be a capital offense. If I got shot by one of them, that is. Only if.
But other people get all emo about the subject. It kind of cracks me up...do any of the gun people honestly feel anyone is ever going to take their guns away when the NRA spends HOW much money lobbying against any legislation that even has two words that might hint at the government even looking into possibly looking into gun control?
Don't you know how Washington works? You're all perfectly safe. Relax.
I'd imagine they'll strike that one down too. The court is not going to allow bans, or de facto bans, now that they've started ruling on this issue.
I'm really not a big gun control guy. I'm not. I think there are useful regulations that might help, at least in solving, if not preventing, crime, but sweeping bans just hurt the wrong people.
Polonius wrote:I'd imagine they'll strike that one down too. The court is not going to allow bans, or de facto bans, now that they've started ruling on this issue.
I'm really not a big gun control guy. I'm not. I think there are useful regulations that might help, at least in solving, if not preventing, crime, but sweeping bans just hurt the wrong people.
Agreed. Truth be told I'd be down with it being an absolute state issue, wherein each state had abolsute control. Chicago could be restrictive and Texans could have the right to carry Bofors machine guns. But thats unconstitutional, so I'm the other way.
Grignard wrote:Yes, thank God you live in a sophisticated city and don't have to do something as terrible and unnatural as hunt. I'm also glad you feel that you don't need to defend your home. Perhaps everyone doesn't feel as secure as you do.
Hey, I have no problem with hunting. I just said that...and aren't shotguns the best home defense weapon, anyway? I have no problem with shotgun ownership, either.
Just because I live in a city now doesn't mean I always did.
But you would have problems with shotgun made of plastic that loads from a drum magazine? Even though they're essentially the same as a semi-auto shotgun you'd buy at Wal-Mart? Or does this, being a shotgun, not fall under your definition of assault rifle?
I should probably say "assault rifles and submachine guns," to be precise, in terms of what needs heavy regulation.
These weapons are highly regulated. You'll need to have a license and pay a 200$ fee to the ATF, and pay a 200$ fee every time you transfer it. Same thing with a supressor, or any kind of toy like that. Now, you can purchase weapons that are SEMI-AUTO that look and feel, and may use some of the same parts as, an AK-47, AUG, etc, but they're completely different actions. A weapon like that isn't much different than a semi-auto rifle with a wooden stock you'd buy at the sporting goods store. But for whatever reason people don't freak about those.
See, gun-nuts would say "Oh, we need these weapons so we can fight the gov'ment!"
You're very good at objectifying anyone who doesn't agree with you. Am I a "nut" because I enjoy shooting autoloading rifles at a target range? My possession of firearms has nothing to do with the government.
But that's ridiculous. If it ever came down to a bunch of yahoos with commercially-available firearms versus the United States military, the civilians would get slaughtered. You don't actually have "the ability to resist an oppressive government" through firearm ownership anymore. Those days are long, long past us.
I'm not going to sit and argue about this as this has nothing to do with ownership of firearms. However, the Germans found out how much damage partisans could do with hunting weapons in WWII. Do you not read about how many casualties we've suffered in the Middle East due to IEDs.
Really the only firearms I know are WW II firearms from historical interest, and the most popularized modern weaponry from movies and video games. I'm not "into guns," but I'm aware of the basic categorizations and what they're designed to do. I don't think any American who is into action movies and FPS games doesn't.
You've shown that you aren't aware of "basic categorizations" and what they're designed to do. Anybody who bases their knowledge from FPS and movies doesnt.
Unlike some of my FPS counterparts, however, I hold precisely zero illusions about having any sort of expertise.
That is good. As someone who has played a lot of FPS I can tell you it isn't the same. The look and feel is getting better with every game though.
I did know how to load and fire WW II weapons, however, when I went to a shooting range in Vegas. A .45 is a hand cannon, a Thompson has good kick and sounds awesome, a Sten felt like it would break if you dropped it in a pile of dirt, and an MP40 reminded me how stupid it is when movies have the Germans holding them by the magazine and it purred like a Porsche.
If I ever go back to said shooting range, I'm just buying like 10 magazines' worth of MP40 ammo and going to town. No BAR at the place, though. I was very disappointed.
I'm glad you had a good time. Do you not see my point of view from your experience. Are you a "gun nut" now?
One thing I have come to realize over the years of having these conversations in many places...gun ownership is academic to me. I don't own them, failing the rise of a zombie apocalypse don't care to own one, and could really care less unless, when and if, some criminal comes after me with one, in which I would only feel more solidified in my basic thinking that guns should be strictly regulated.
In that case, I'd probably change from my current position to thinking that handguns and assault rifles should not only be utterly banned from civilian ownership, but that illegal possession of them should be a capital offense. If I got shot by one of them, that is. Only if.
If you're thinking ahead to how you would feel in a hypothetical situation, then you probably *really* feel that way already. Even if you got shot, do you really think that you'd feel that someone possessing a gun should get the death penalty? Thats a little far.
But other people get all emo about the subject. It kind of cracks me up...do any of the gun people honestly feel anyone is ever going to take their guns away when the NRA spends HOW much money lobbying against any legislation that even has two words that might hint at the government even looking into possibly looking into gun control?
Don't you know how Washington works? You're all perfectly safe. Relax.
I'm quite relaxed about it for the reason you mentioned. I give my money to the NRA for exactly that purpose.
All of these only affect those that can legally own arms, so no felons or the like.
Air Rifles/bb guns/etc: solely up to the states for ages and the like.
Hunting Rifles/Shotguns: No bans or registration, open access to all.
handguns: no bans, but a concealed carry permit is required to purchase one. CCW licenses must be offered by all states. Ain't nobody legally packing causing problems.
Assault rifles (defined as fully automatic rifles) and sub-machine guns (fully automatic weapons that shoot pistol ammo) : Legal with the appropriate permit/training/registration, which will be created. I'd include criminal and civil penalties for allowing their weapons to be used in crimes, either by design or through carelessness.
Machine guns and other larger arms: not allowed to individuals, I'd like to explore the possibility of allowing historical and reenactor groups access to some weaponry.
As for Felons, I say that once fully released (not on parole), they can certainly have a shotgun or rifle if they want, but they have to register it.
Polonius wrote:My ideal gun control system would be as follows:
All of these only affect those that can legally own arms, so no felons or the like.
Air Rifles/bb guns/etc: solely up to the states for ages and the like.
Hunting Rifles/Shotguns: No bans or registration, open access to all.
handguns: no bans, but a concealed carry permit is required to purchase one. CCW licenses must be offered by all states. Ain't nobody legally packing causing problems.
Assault rifles (defined as fully automatic rifles) and sub-machine guns (fully automatic weapons that shoot pistol ammo) : Legal with the appropriate permit/training/registration, which will be created. I'd include criminal and civil penalties for allowing their weapons to be used in crimes, either by design or through carelessness.
Machine guns and other larger arms: not allowed to individuals, I'd like to explore the possibility of allowing historical and reenactor groups access to some weaponry.
As for Felons, I say that once fully released (not on parole), they can certainly have a shotgun or rifle if they want, but they have to register it.
Tha actually sounds very reasonable, except I would take exception to the requirement to have a CCW. Handguns are used in hunting and competition.
The only other problem is back to defining what a hunting rifle is. There are plenty of good semi-auto rifles designed from the beginning with hunting in mind. Same thing with shotguns, excpet probably more so. I'm not a big bird hunter, but most people who I know who are use semi-auto shotguns.
All of these only affect those that can legally own arms, so no felons or the like.
Air Rifles/bb guns/etc: solely up to the states for ages and the like.
***Cool. Mostly llike that now.
Hunting Rifles/Shotguns: No bans or registration, open access to all.
***Word, but define hunting rifle unless its all guns besides assault rifles noted below
handguns: no bans, but a concealed carry permit is required to purchase one. CCW licenses must be offered by all states. Ain't nobody legally packing causing problems.
***Why do you need a ccl? Are you referring to similar requirements-aka a license to own?
Assault rifles (defined as fully automatic rifles) and sub-machine guns (fully automatic weapons that shoot pistol ammo) : Legal with the appropriate permit/training/registration, which will be created. I'd include criminal and civil penalties for allowing their weapons to be used in crimes, either by design or through carelessness.
****AKA the current law. Agreed.
Machine guns and other larger arms: not allowed to individuals, I'd like to explore the possibility of allowing historical and reenactor groups access to some weaponry.
****Wait, you just did that above. A fully automatic weapon is a machine gun.
As for Felons, I say that once fully released (not on parole), they can certainly have a shotgun or rifle if they want, but they have to register it.
***Cool.
Imo firearms should only be legal in the hands of those with honorable military and police (including FBI, CIA, etc) experience. That way firearms go to the hands of the trained and experienced and you've got a file about 'em already due to their service to the government and country.
Pretty radical change that has zero chance of happening but too late you already read it
If you have an argument that a killing with a knife is less sanitized than killing with a gun at range, by all means present it. Otherwise, you have no argument with me.
First off, what do you consider "at range"? What definition of sanitized are you using? (I will not be posting the images hereafter directly to the thread. WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES!!!!!!!!
Gunshot wounds:
THIS NEXT ONE IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC, NOT KIDDING. YOU MAY WANT TO VIEW ON EMPTY STOMACH. OR NEVER.
http://www.davesems.com/Injuries.html wrote:This Victim was was shot in the face at close range with a High Caliber Hand Gun. He survived the Gunshot wound but will encounter several operations throughout his life. Lock your hand guns away from children and treat it with extreme care ALWAYS
Cane wrote:Imo firearms should only be legal in the hands of those with honorable military and police (including FBI, CIA, etc) experience. That way firearms go to the hands of the trained and experienced and you've got a file about 'em already due to their service to the government and country.
Pretty radical change that has zero chance of happening but too late you already read it
Do people with police or military training not commit violent crime? I'm an educated man who has used firearms for 20 years or so. I feel I'm at least as responsible as some police officer.
I'm not a huge fan of the police, so I might be biased.
Frazzled wrote:My ideal gun control system would be as follows:
All of these only affect those that can legally own arms, so no felons or the like.
Air Rifles/bb guns/etc: solely up to the states for ages and the like.
***Cool. Mostly llike that now.
Hunting Rifles/Shotguns: No bans or registration, open access to all.
***Word, but define hunting rifle unless its all guns besides assault rifles noted below
handguns: no bans, but a concealed carry permit is required to purchase one. CCW licenses must be offered by all states. Ain't nobody legally packing causing problems.
***Why do you need a ccl? Are you referring to similar requirements-aka a license to own?
Assault rifles (defined as fully automatic rifles) and sub-machine guns (fully automatic weapons that shoot pistol ammo) : Legal with the appropriate permit/training/registration, which will be created. I'd include criminal and civil penalties for allowing their weapons to be used in crimes, either by design or through carelessness.
****AKA the current law. Agreed.
Machine guns and other larger arms: not allowed to individuals, I'd like to explore the possibility of allowing historical and reenactor groups access to some weaponry.
****Wait, you just did that above. A fully automatic weapon is a machine gun.
As for Felons, I say that once fully released (not on parole), they can certainly have a shotgun or rifle if they want, but they have to register it.
***Cool.
Hunting rifles are anything that's not fully auto.
I would simply make a CCL a requirement to own a handgun. I suppose you could create a new classification that's a shorter course, but basically I'd only sell handguns to people that take them seriously.
I would actually make it easier to get an assualt rifle/sub machine gun permit. Maybe not easier in terms of effort, but easier in terms of making them available.
I'd define machine guns as anything belt fed, or with more than so many rounds. I'm talking about actually SAWs, M-60s, that sort of thing. If an American wants to own an AK-47 or M-16, I say let 'em. I just don't think we need to hand out .50 cals or mortars to people.
Polonius wrote:
Hunting rifles are anything that's not fully auto.
I would simply make a CCL a requirement to own a handgun. I suppose you could create a new classification that's a shorter course, but basically I'd only sell handguns to people that take them seriously.
I would actually make it easier to get an assualt rifle/sub machine gun permit. Maybe not easier in terms of effort, but easier in terms of making them available.
I'd define machine guns as anything belt fed, or with more than so many rounds. I'm talking about actually SAWs, M-60s, that sort of thing. If an American wants to own an AK-47 or M-16, I say let 'em. I just don't think we need to hand out .50 cals or mortars to people.
If you're defining a hunting rifle as anything not fully auto, then what most people are calling "assault rifles" are hunting rifles. Permits for automatic weapons/suppressors and the like aren't that "hard" to get already, they're just expensive.
Grignard wrote:But you would have problems with shotgun made of plastic that loads from a drum magazine? Even though they're essentially the same as a semi-auto shotgun you'd buy at Wal-Mart? Or does this, being a shotgun, not fall under your definition of assault rifle?
I think it comes down to intent of design. Is a plastic shotgun fed from a drum magazine meant for hunting? Probably not...so it doesn't fall under what I'm talking about. Technically it's a shotgun, but I don't think it was designed for the traditional purposes of a sporting or civilian shotgun versus combat models.
Grignard wrote:These weapons are highly regulated. You'll need to have a license and pay a 200$ fee to the ATF, and pay a 200$ fee every time you transfer it. Same thing with a supressor, or any kind of toy like that. Now, you can purchase weapons that are SEMI-AUTO that look and feel, and may use some of the same parts as, an AK-47, AUG, etc, but they're completely different actions. A weapon like that isn't much different than a semi-auto rifle with a wooden stock you'd buy at the sporting goods store. But for whatever reason people don't freak about those.
I personally don't think civilians should get any of this stuff. No licenses, fees. You just cannot have them. These are military weapons, designed for military use, or law enforcement in some cases. Not for civilians. These "civilian models" are just fascination with the military models...I play plenty of FPS games and have that same fascination, but don't feel the need to actually own any of them.
Can't you convert a semi-automatic version of these weapons and make it fully automatic?
It's also a cultural thing to me. You probably live in a local culture where possession of lots of guns might be cool, or a matter of collecting. I have a gamer friend from Texas who owns more guns that I could possibly remember, when he starts rattling off the types.
That's not the culture I live in...and given a choice, I'd prefer a national culture where guns are never collector items or virtual toys. I think that's reasonable. Again, that's entirely academic, however, and my choice is to stay where I am rather than go somewhere that doesn't share my ideals. *shrug*
Grignard wrote:You're very good at objectifying anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Like everyone else on here at one point or another.
Grignard wrote:Am I a "nut" because I enjoy shooting autoloading rifles at a target range?
Have I identified you as a nut? I don't think I have..."gun-nuts" to me are people who flip out and get emotional and illogical whenever these gun-control debates come up. People who really get angry about "Ah don't want the guv'ment takin' mah guns."
Those people come off like lunatics to me, yes.
Grignard wrote:Do you not read about how many casualties we've suffered in the Middle East due to IEDs.
Should we equate explosive devices to firearms here?
Grignard wrote:You've shown that you aren't aware of "basic categorizations" and what they're designed to do. Anybody who bases their knowledge from FPS and movies doesn't.
Please. Yes I have. Rifles, pistols, shotguns, submachine guns, assault rifles covers about everything civilians can get their hands on. I'm sure you can get heavier weapons like SAWs or something through some loophole, but I imagine it also costs enough money and has enough paperwork to get them legally that only the most dedicated enthusiasts do, I imagine. Perhaps you can speak to that.
Grignard wrote:I'm glad you had a good time. Do you not see my point of view from your experience. Are you a "gun nut" now?
I refer to earlier statement...responsible gun owners aren't nuts. Sometimes I think that everyone should have some experience firing a weapon just to de-mistify them. They don't all need open access to own them, however.
Hell, I think a public program to expose people to shooting weapons could turn a lot of kids off from firearms when they see the destruction they can cause. When I felt the kick of a .45 for the first time and realized just how badly you could injure someone with one, it was something I thought about for days and made me respect firearms more than I could have before...but it also helped solidify my belief that access to them should be restricted.
Grignard wrote:If you're thinking ahead to how you would feel in a hypothetical situation, then you probably *really* feel that way already. Even if you got shot, do you really think that you'd feel that someone possessing a gun should get the death penalty? Thats a little far.
Well...I'm a pretty stringent defender of the death penalty in concept. In execution the way we do it is all sorts of wrong, the policy is quite racist in its implementation, and too many people have been proven innocent of capital crimes due to DNA evidence a decade past the conviction.
But in a perfect world, or near-perfect, where convictions are honest and true? Hell, I'd impose capital punishment on murder, rape, theft over certain amounts (Bernie Madoff - dead), production and distribution of some drugs (heroin, cocaine, crystal meth), some forms of animal abuse, child abuse...
I would also liberalize a lot of other things to make them no longer illegal, like soft drugs and prostitution for instance.
I think the law should never be construed as a deterrent, but a punishment. To that end, it should be decisive and harsh. As long as it's also fair.
Grignard wrote:I'm quite relaxed about it for the reason you mentioned. I give my money to the NRA for exactly that purpose.
Well, the legal term "assault weapon" and the technical term "assault rifle" are conflated. I mean assault rifles for what they are: rifle caliber weapons that are fully automatic.
My regulatory system is aimed at doing two things: allowing people to arm up for all legitimate purposes (hunting, self defense, militia work including governmental overthrow) while tightening up requirements for weapons preferred for crime.
The police often have a difficult job, and deal with the realities of our system (where fairness and justice aren't even close to the same thing) on a regular basis. They do have broad executive power and the ability to use nearly complete discretion. there's bound to be some abuse.
Cairnius wrote:I actually think that rifles and shotguns are what I am least concerned about. Handguns are #1 because they're easy to conceal and explicitly designed for use against human beings.
Whether they're made to be used against humans doesn't really matter; a hit from the rifle is still more dangerous.
The ability to conceal the handgun, and to an extent use it in close quarters better, is what makes it useful. However, it then becomes a question of whether reduced ability to use the gun in close quarters and conceal it is a good tradeoff for making the weapons criminals use more likely to kill their target if they're shot. In the cases where the criminal isn't using a weapon obtained illegally, of course.
I'm not that convinced that it is. I think there's too much of an ability to get a handgun illegally if its capabilities are really needed, in which case the long gun is being used as a substitute in the situations where the lack of a handgun isn't hugely damning.
Rifles and shotguns have extremely legitimate uses for hunting.
I agree, but if they're more dangerous than a handgun I don't see why handguns should come under harsher restrictions.
However, like you, I'm not a huge gun expert. I'd be interested in what someone who has a lot of experience with both types of gun thinks.
Cane wrote:Imo firearms should only be legal in the hands of those with honorable military and police (including FBI, CIA, etc) experience. That way firearms go to the hands of the trained and experienced and you've got a file about 'em already due to their service to the government and country.
Pretty radical change that has zero chance of happening but too late you already read it
Do people with police or military training not commit violent crime? I'm an educated man who has used firearms for 20 years or so. I feel I'm at least as responsible as some police officer.
I'm not a huge fan of the police, so I might be biased.
Yea its just a fantasy for me and personal preference; much rather weapons be in the hands of people with honorable military and police experience than not due to my own military bias. I'm not a huge fan of civvies owning firearms since imo its too easy to get one and they're handed out to just about anybody - I generally distrust the Average Joe when it comes to weapons and much rather trust 'em to a GI JOE if you will.
I also think the country could use mandatory military/civil service buts thats a whole other tangent.
Cairnius wrote:I actually think that rifles and shotguns are what I am least concerned about. Handguns are #1 because they're easy to conceal and explicitly designed for use against human beings.
Whether they're made to be used against humans doesn't really matter; a hit from the rifle is still more dangerous.
The ability to conceal the handgun, and to an extent use it in close quarters better, is what makes it useful. However, it then becomes a question of whether reduced ability to use the gun in close quarters and conceal it is a good tradeoff for making the weapons criminals use more likely to kill their target if they're shot. In the cases where the criminal isn't using a weapon obtained illegally, of course.
I'm not that convinced that it is. I think there's too much of an ability to get a handgun illegally if its capabilities are really needed, in which case the long gun is being used as a substitute in the situations where the lack of a handgun isn't hugely damning.
Rifles and shotguns have extremely legitimate uses for hunting.
I agree, but if they're more dangerous than a handgun I don't see why handguns should come under harsher restrictions.
However, like you, I'm not a huge gun expert. I'd be interested in what someone who has a lot of experience with both types of gun thinks.
I'm not a huge expert, and I don't have any military experience, but I've been a shooter for many years and a hunter more recently, so I'll give my opinion, which is just that, and opinion.
I think there are more laws concerning handguns is the fact that they're concealable ( though a 1911 type .45 is pretty hard to conceal actually), and the reasoning is that it would be easier to rob someone or sneak it in somewhere and assasinate someone.
As far as lethality, I'm not entirely sure I'll buy that ALL rifles or shotguns are more lethal or incapacitating than ALL pistols. It depends on a lot of things, probably most importantly what type of bullet you're using. In fact, that is why it is illegal in TN to hunt with jacketed rounds, whether it is in a rifle or handgun. You are required to use some sort of lead nose or cavity tipped bullet, the reasoning being that jacketed rounds could pass through a game animal without doing enough damage to stop it. Then you would lose the animal and it would needlessly suffer and die from infection or other causes.
Jacketed bullets are in fact designed to pass through targets with a minimum of damage if they don't impact something hard like bone. That also means that they can pass through a target and still injure someone on the other side.
Another thing is that it isn't like the ammunition for pistols and rifles is always different. Many rifles now, for instance, are chambered in .357 and .44 mag. In fact, a .44 mag from a rifle barrel has more energy at the muzzle than a 30-30, at least from what I've read.
There are also pistols chambered in "rifle" calibers. You can buy single shot pistols chambered in rounds like .223 and .308 ( the civ equivalent of the NATO rifle round). These are good for hunting and they're popular with metallic silhouette shooters. AMT made a pistol that fired 30-30, and the ammunition from .44 automag is not commercially availible but I was told it can be made from .30 caliber rifle rounds.
Another point I would mention to Cairnius is that while rifles and shotguns have uses for hunting, so do pistols. Many people pistol hunt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cane wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Cane wrote:Imo firearms should only be legal in the hands of those with honorable military and police (including FBI, CIA, etc) experience. That way firearms go to the hands of the trained and experienced and you've got a file about 'em already due to their service to the government and country.
Pretty radical change that has zero chance of happening but too late you already read it
Do people with police or military training not commit violent crime? I'm an educated man who has used firearms for 20 years or so. I feel I'm at least as responsible as some police officer.
I'm not a huge fan of the police, so I might be biased.
Yea its just a fantasy for me and personal preference; much rather weapons be in the hands of people with honorable military and police experience than not due to my own military bias. I'm not a huge fan of civvies owning firearms since imo its too easy to get one and they're handed out to just about anybody - I generally distrust the Average Joe when it comes to weapons and much rather trust 'em to a GI JOE if you will.
I also think the country could use mandatory military/civil service buts thats a whole other tangent.
I'll agree with that. I mistrust most people with firearms until I know they know what they're doing.
Grignard: Your pretty much spot on with your assessment.
I have a friend that bear hunts with a revolver. So I agree that pistols are great for hunting. I personally have never tried it, cause im oldschool in the fact that I feel I need a solid rifle slung over my shoulder when hunting anything bigger then a mouse.
Cairnius: Dude just stop...
As soon as you compared Real Life to a FPS (Ex COD4) game you argument/validment went right straight out the window.
I had a half page argument that picked your argument apart, but then I realised that it wouldnt do a damn bit of good and decided to type this instead.
Polonius wrote:Long arms are better for hunting, militia duty, and according to most experts I've read, home defense. If you look to the core of the 2nd amendment, I think those three aspects make banning long arms impossible, and regulating them subject to strict scrutiny (a legal term of art that requires any law violating that right to serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and be no more restrictive than is necessary). I could see a court deciding that the need to regulate handguns allows for a nationwide registry, based on crime and the like.
Pistols are better for home offense vs. long guns. You can't negotiate the corners very well.
I've read compelling arguments for both. Some of the factors for shotguns is that they can blow through walls, don't need to be accurate, and scare the living hell out of intruders more than any pistol, both by sight and by sound.
There are advantages for pistols, no doubt. They're easier to maneuver, they can be hid and stored a lot easier, they have a higher rate of fire, etc.
The rule of thumb I'd read was that unless you're skilled with a pistol, and don't need glasses/contacts that not be available at night, the shotgun is the better bet most of the time.
I should have thought a flamethrower was better, except for the fire hazard. Or maybe Claymore mines in the garden?
What about nerve gas dispensers... Just equip your family with automatic atropine injectors.
But I jest.
In most European countries it's pretty easy to get a gun legally if you want one. Rifles and shotguns are the easiest. The difference to the USA is that EU citizenry aren't so concerned about being tooled up as Americans are, for whatever reason I don't know.
jp400 wrote:Cairnius: Dude just stop...
As soon as you compared Real Life to a FPS (Ex COD4) game you argument/validment went right straight out the window.
I think you're looking for "validity." The validity of my argument.
No one compared real life to a FPS. Way to read. I said that anyone who plays FPS is familiar with the basic categories of firearm at their simplest level, which is 100% true.
I'm glad you didn't waste half a page...if you haven't been actually reading what I've been saying...
In terms of what G and O said about rifles versus pistols, different ammo types, etc:
IMHO, that all just further makes the argument for registration.
If we establish that there's no way to tamp down on the problem of people who shouldn't own guns owning guns by only regulasting certain types of weapons, or ammuntion, then you have to regulate it all. There's nothing that's innocent, nothing that is "more safe," which is what I am hearing you two argue.
I understand where the totally anti-gun people come from. Here we're trying to figure out how to limit firearm access only to those responsible enough to wield them, and the only options are radical ones. The truly anti-gun lobby just wants to cut to the chase and ban them all save for law enforcement and military use. That would go a long way to solving the problem. Then make carrying a concealed weapon illegally, or discharging a firearm illegally, or any other crime you can think of which someone who illegally owned a firearm for nefarious purposes might commit, and make them all extremely severe felonies such that if you get caught, you are away for life.
Even that might not do it entirely.
I don't like to accept that social problems aren't solvable, myself. Perhaps someone can talk to existing gun laws which aren't enforced and which, if they were, would serve the purposes of keeping guns out of the hands of the irresponsible or anyone else who should not be trusted with them.
Or, we could cut to the chase. Is there any way to allow responsible citizens the right to bear arms and assure with, say, 99% certainly that no one who could ever snap and turn into a shooter could get their hands on one?
I do not accept that just anyone, or everyone, could, so please don't take that tack of argument...I want to see if anyone can come up with any ideas I haven't heard before. It would be interesting.
Grignard wrote:I'm not a huge expert, and I don't have any military experience, but I've been a shooter for many years and a hunter more recently, so I'll give my opinion, which is just that, and opinion.
I think there are more laws concerning handguns is the fact that they're concealable ( though a 1911 type .45 is pretty hard to conceal actually), and the reasoning is that it would be easier to rob someone or sneak it in somewhere and assasinate someone.
As far as lethality, I'm not entirely sure I'll buy that ALL rifles or shotguns are more lethal or incapacitating than ALL pistols. It depends on a lot of things, probably most importantly what type of bullet you're using. In fact, that is why it is illegal in TN to hunt with jacketed rounds, whether it is in a rifle or handgun. You are required to use some sort of lead nose or cavity tipped bullet, the reasoning being that jacketed rounds could pass through a game animal without doing enough damage to stop it. Then you would lose the animal and it would needlessly suffer and die from infection or other causes.
Jacketed bullets are in fact designed to pass through targets with a minimum of damage if they don't impact something hard like bone. That also means that they can pass through a target and still injure someone on the other side.
Another thing is that it isn't like the ammunition for pistols and rifles is always different. Many rifles now, for instance, are chambered in .357 and .44 mag. In fact, a .44 mag from a rifle barrel has more energy at the muzzle than a 30-30, at least from what I've read.
There are also pistols chambered in "rifle" calibers. You can buy single shot pistols chambered in rounds like .223 and .308 ( the civ equivalent of the NATO rifle round). These are good for hunting and they're popular with metallic silhouette shooters. AMT made a pistol that fired 30-30, and the ammunition from .44 automag is not commercially availible but I was told it can be made from .30 caliber rifle rounds.
Another point I would mention to Cairnius is that while rifles and shotguns have uses for hunting, so do pistols. Many people pistol hunt.
Ah, interesting.
I guess I didn't think of them as being so similar to each other.
Grignard wrote:I'm not a huge expert, and I don't have any military experience, but I've been a shooter for many years and a hunter more recently, so I'll give my opinion, which is just that, and opinion.
I think there are more laws concerning handguns is the fact that they're concealable ( though a 1911 type .45 is pretty hard to conceal actually), and the reasoning is that it would be easier to rob someone or sneak it in somewhere and assasinate someone.
As far as lethality, I'm not entirely sure I'll buy that ALL rifles or shotguns are more lethal or incapacitating than ALL pistols. It depends on a lot of things, probably most importantly what type of bullet you're using. In fact, that is why it is illegal in TN to hunt with jacketed rounds, whether it is in a rifle or handgun. You are required to use some sort of lead nose or cavity tipped bullet, the reasoning being that jacketed rounds could pass through a game animal without doing enough damage to stop it. Then you would lose the animal and it would needlessly suffer and die from infection or other causes.
Jacketed bullets are in fact designed to pass through targets with a minimum of damage if they don't impact something hard like bone. That also means that they can pass through a target and still injure someone on the other side.
Another thing is that it isn't like the ammunition for pistols and rifles is always different. Many rifles now, for instance, are chambered in .357 and .44 mag. In fact, a .44 mag from a rifle barrel has more energy at the muzzle than a 30-30, at least from what I've read.
There are also pistols chambered in "rifle" calibers. You can buy single shot pistols chambered in rounds like .223 and .308 ( the civ equivalent of the NATO rifle round). These are good for hunting and they're popular with metallic silhouette shooters. AMT made a pistol that fired 30-30, and the ammunition from .44 automag is not commercially availible but I was told it can be made from .30 caliber rifle rounds.
Another point I would mention to Cairnius is that while rifles and shotguns have uses for hunting, so do pistols. Many people pistol hunt.
Ah, interesting.
I guess I didn't think of them as being so similar to each other.
Well, its not that their similar to each other, its just that firearms designers are very creative. For instance, it is illegal to have a short barrel shotgun in the US, except with a permit that you have to pay for. However, there is nothing wrong with having a .45 Long Colt that just happens to chamber a .410 shotgun shell. Not all of these examples are done for legal reasons. In fact, I don't think the raison d'etre for that specific example was legal in nature, it just works that way.
A shotgun is by definition a smoothbore weapon. However, you can put a solid slug in a shotgun, it just won't be as accurate as a rifled barrel. Some states don't allow centerfire rifles for hunting, therefore you have shotgun slugs. Oddly enough TN used to not allow, and may still not, the use of buckshot for deer hunting. But a solid slug is OK. Go figure.
jp400 wrote:Cairnius: Dude just stop...
As soon as you compared Real Life to a FPS (Ex COD4) game you argument/validment went right straight out the window.
I think you're looking for "validity." The validity of my argument.
No one compared real life to a FPS. Way to read. I said that anyone who plays FPS is familiar with the basic categories of firearm at their simplest level, which is 100% true.
I'm glad you didn't waste half a page...if you haven't been actually reading what I've been saying...
In terms of what G and O said about rifles versus pistols, different ammo types, etc:
IMHO, that all just further makes the argument for registration.
If we establish that there's no way to tamp down on the problem of people who shouldn't own guns owning guns by only regulasting certain types of weapons, or ammuntion, then you have to regulate it all. There's nothing that's innocent, nothing that is "more safe," which is what I am hearing you two argue.
I understand where the totally anti-gun people come from. Here we're trying to figure out how to limit firearm access only to those responsible enough to wield them, and the only options are radical ones. The truly anti-gun lobby just wants to cut to the chase and ban them all save for law enforcement and military use. That would go a long way to solving the problem. Then make carrying a concealed weapon illegally, or discharging a firearm illegally, or any other crime you can think of which someone who illegally owned a firearm for nefarious purposes might commit, and make them all extremely severe felonies such that if you get caught, you are away for life.
Even that might not do it entirely.
I don't like to accept that social problems aren't solvable, myself. Perhaps someone can talk to existing gun laws which aren't enforced and which, if they were, would serve the purposes of keeping guns out of the hands of the irresponsible or anyone else who should not be trusted with them.
Or, we could cut to the chase. Is there any way to allow responsible citizens the right to bear arms and assure with, say, 99% certainly that no one who could ever snap and turn into a shooter could get their hands on one?
I do not accept that just anyone, or everyone, could, so please don't take that tack of argument...I want to see if anyone can come up with any ideas I haven't heard before. It would be interesting.
I have found that its hard to argue with stupid. So I dont.
Fraz:
Ooooh.... Ahhhh.
Now how about On Topic Pics?
For the Russian Gun lovers:
Polonius wrote:Well, the legal term "assault weapon" and the technical term "assault rifle" are conflated. I mean assault rifles for what they are: rifle caliber weapons that are fully automatic.
For all intents and purposes that category also encompasses machine guns. I know you mentioned a distinction based on feed type/capacity, but there are issues with that as well (vis a vis optional magazines). Perhaps a weight restriction based on an unloaded weapon?
Polonius wrote:Well, the legal term "assault weapon" and the technical term "assault rifle" are conflated. I mean assault rifles for what they are: rifle caliber weapons that are fully automatic.
For all intents and purposes that category also encompasses machine guns. I know you mentioned a distinction based on feed type/capacity, but there are issues with that as well (vis a vis optional magazines). Perhaps a weight restriction based on an unloaded weapon?
Sure. I'm not a weapons expert, but there has to be some way to differentiate between an assault rifle and a squad based machine gun meant to provide continuous fire.
Polonius wrote:Well, the legal term "assault weapon" and the technical term "assault rifle" are conflated. I mean assault rifles for what they are: rifle caliber weapons that are fully automatic.
For all intents and purposes that category also encompasses machine guns. I know you mentioned a distinction based on feed type/capacity, but there are issues with that as well (vis a vis optional magazines). Perhaps a weight restriction based on an unloaded weapon?
Sure. I'm not a weapons expert, but there has to be some way to differentiate between an assault rifle and a squad based machine gun meant to provide continuous fire.
I'm not a gunsmith, but from my reading, I'm not so sure you can. Perhaps someone who is military or a GI can help us? I guess tradtionally the machine gun provided to a squad is belt fed and crew operated, kind of like the Lascannon crew for IG in 40k. An autoloading firearm is autoloading. I guess the difference is in intent and caliber. Generally what people call submachineguns are automatic weapons that use pistol ammunition, like 9mm, instead of rifle ammunition like the .223.
Grignard wrote: I guess tradtionally the machine gun provided to a squad is belt fed <snip>
And this is why classifying firearms can get sticky. There are literally no limits on what humans can conceive and accomplish. As shown on this site, any firearm can be modified to accept a belt. I know the rest of the sentences refers to squad operated, and such, but the fact is, any firearm and artillery piece can be operated by a single person, even if a greatly reduced ROF, so "squad operated' actually means nothing. The truth is that further classification is not necessary; Every conventional firearm is already covered under law, and many are heavily regulated. This doesn't stop those who operate without regard to regulations, as shown in the OP. If gun shows are shut down, then those people willing to ignore laws and regulations in both buying and selling are still going to do so; They will simply be doing it in a place MUCH less accessible by regulatory agents both undercover and in uniform (say out of a trunk in a deserted alley). All this will do is (once again) punish those law abiding citizens who wish to gather to trade legally.
We have these stupid conversations as though anything any of us have to say about any of this matters at all.
My cat Bea died tonight. Never saw it coming. I had her for 12 years. Sweetest cat you ever met, and you can tell a lot about a person by how they treat animals and how animals relate to them. Especially cats, because they're picky.
Heart disease. Passed her physical and blood work 3 months ago with flying colors. Nothing we could have done. Found her lying on her side, couldn't move her back legs. Threw a clot that cut circulation off to the lower half of her body. Her back legs were cold by the time I got her to the hospital.
What's amazing is that I spent some of my time today when I got home from work on here arguing with people who more than likely couldn't give a gak that I just lost something immensely precious to me. That was time I could have spent with my cat before she was gone.
I won't subject myself to the mocking, immature, and hateful responses I am sure this is going to generate...not even sure why I did this. Maybe because I'm finding it difficult to do anything right now and this was something I found myself willing and able to do. Maybe so I could say that to anyone who's given me abuse since I've been here, there's an actual person on the other side of these words, and I'm just as guilty as committing the sin as some of you are by acting like a complete, arrogant donkey-cave to give guff to strangers I'll never meet and who someday I will never speak to again.
Puts things into perspective when you run headfirst into something that's actually important.
This thread is made out of pure evil.... PURE EVIL!!! I think we have firmly established that Cairnius totally hates the OT forum, and will never ever ever... return again. Go build a kayak, and make a bird-house mate. Go save orphans, and fight fires mate. Good on you for being part of the solution... just make sure you get around to doing it mmk'?
Sorry about your cat though.
Seriously though... ummm.... just ummm.
And now to continue on this threads tangent... nice, super-tangent awesomeness.
We have these stupid conversations as though anything any of us have to say about any of this matters at all.
My cat Bea died tonight. Never saw it coming. I had her for 12 years. Sweetest cat you ever met, and you can tell a lot about a person by how they treat animals and how animals relate to them. Especially cats, because they're picky.
Heart disease. Passed her physical and blood work 3 months ago with flying colors. Nothing we could have done. Found her lying on her side, couldn't move her back legs. Threw a clot that cut circulation off to the lower half of her body. Her back legs were cold by the time I got her to the hospital.
What's amazing is that I spent some of my time today when I got home from work on here arguing with people who more than likely couldn't give a gak that I just lost something immensely precious to me. That was time I could have spent with my cat before she was gone.
I won't subject myself to the mocking, immature, and hateful responses I am sure this is going to generate...not even sure why I did this. Maybe because I'm finding it difficult to do anything right now and this was something I found myself willing and able to do. Maybe so I could say that to anyone who's given me abuse since I've been here, there's an actual person on the other side of these words, and I'm just as guilty as committing the sin as some of you are by acting like a complete, arrogant donkey-cave to give guff to strangers I'll never meet and who someday I will never speak to again.
Puts things into perspective when you run headfirst into something that's actually important.
dogma wrote:Yeah, I would agree with that. I think to some extent we just have to accept that there are going to be some holes in the system.
I agree with this completely. I'll take an imperfect system rather than surrender any of my rights anyday. It's unfortunate that people die because of gun related crimes, but honestly our population has to get thinned a little once in a while somehow. And If I get shot by a mugger someday, it won't change my opinion on this in anyway. (It's better than a heart attack on the crapper, or bleeding to death from a stab wound)
@ wrex:
t stunt by NYC. 
