The Firearms Industry Boycott Grows.

[wargunfan]

The firearms industry is hitting back at the states which have demonized their products. Good for them. It is my hope that the boycott grows to the point that it really pinches the gun grabbers.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/gun-companies-boycotting-law-enforcement-in-anti-gun-states-grow-by-more-than-700-in-1-week/

[wargunfan]

This boycott says loud and clear: Law enforcement will not have arms superior to law abiding people.

[JerseyGator01]

I don't think it will have that bad of an impact on their bottom lines since liberal lawyers at all levels of government have a horrible record of paying their bills anyway.

[wargunfan]

I hope someone will take the time to produce a list of those companies still selling to California, New York and all states which have enacted restrictive gun control laws. Americans should know who not to spend their money with.

[PITBOSS]

oh brother. gun lovers and complicacy theories go hand in hand.

the "government" is going to kick down your door and take your guns! what are you going to do?!

[wygator]

Just a few of the new gun laws being advanced in California:

— AB174, Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, removes prior ownership, or "grandfather" clauses, from state laws prohibiting the possession of various weapons. Current law allows ownership of weapons that were possessed prior to the ban under certain conditions.

— SB53, Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, increases restrictions on purchasing ammunition by requiring buyers to get a permit, undergo a background check and pay a fee.

— SB293, Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, requires that handguns sold in California be protected with what are known as "owner-authorized" safety mechanisms, such as biometric readers or other technologies that mean the weapon can only be fired by the registered owner. The requirement would take effect 18 months after the state attorney general certifies that the new technology is available for retail sale.

— SB374, by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, bans the sale of semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and requires registration of all firearms.

In item one above, it appears that California will be coming for some of the citizens guns if that is passed into law.

In item three, the "owner-authorized" safety mechanism would have been deadly to a family in the news this week. Three home invaders burst into a home. The two older residents were immediately subdued. Their adult son who was visiting made it to the bedroom where he knew they had a gun. He shot and killed one of the intruders and the others fled. Under this law, he would not have been able to fire the gun.

Item 4, combined with item one above, would mean that California would be confiscating every semi-auto rifle in the state with any size magazine.

If government is willing and able to deny it's citizens a big gulp or a 2-liter soda with a pizza delivery, nothing is safe!!!

lots more legislation (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130223/WIRE/130229795/1033/news?p=1&tc=pg)

[helix139]

I love the move, but unfortunately it will have very little impact due to the major LE manufacturers (Colt, Armalite, Smith & Wesson) not adopting the same stance and the widespread availability (under normal market conditions) of parts and magazines to restore unrestricted functionality.

[gator7_5]

Just a few of the new gun laws being advanced in California:



In item one above, it appears that California will be coming for some of the citizens guns if that is passed into law.

In item three, the "owner-authorized" safety mechanism would have been deadly to a family in the news this week. Three home invaders burst into a home. The two older residents were immediately subdued. Their adult son who was visiting made it to the bedroom where he knew they had a gun. He shot and killed one of the intruders and the others fled. Under this law, he would not have been able to fire the gun.

Item 4, combined with item one above, would mean that California would be confiscating every semi-auto rifle in the state with any size magazine.

If government is willing and able to deny it's citizens a big gulp or a 2-liter soda with a pizza delivery, nothing is safe!!!

lots more legislation (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130223/WIRE/130229795/1033/news?p=1&tc=pg)

WOW. #4 would eliminate alot of deer hunting rifles.

[HudsonGator]

Just a few of the new gun laws being advanced in California:



In item one above, it appears that California will be coming for some of the citizens guns if that is passed into law.

In item three, the "owner-authorized" safety mechanism would have been deadly to a family in the news this week. Three home invaders burst into a home. The two older residents were immediately subdued. Their adult son who was visiting made it to the bedroom where he knew they had a gun. He shot and killed one of the intruders and the others fled. Under this law, he would not have been able to fire the gun.

Item 4, combined with item one above, would mean that California would be confiscating every semi-auto rifle in the state with any size magazine.

If government is willing and able to deny it's citizens a big gulp or a 2-liter soda with a pizza delivery, nothing is safe!!!

lots more legislation (http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130223/WIRE/130229795/1033/news?p=1&tc=pg)


Looks like California has some promising legislation on the horizon.

[GatorMid]

Looks like California has some promising legislation on the horizon.

No doubt...I'm sure the forced confiscation of semi-autos from law-abiding citizens will keep them out of the criminals' hands....

Expect to see a drastic reduction of murders in South Central.

:laugh::laugh:

[GatorAbe7]

I hope someone will take the time to produce a list of those companies still selling to California, New York and all states which have enacted restrictive gun control laws. Americans should know who not to spend their money with.

The state of Maryland is just as hostile, if not more so, than California when it comes to private gun ownership. Their Governer, a drone liberal, has in the past few weeks presented such excessive anti-gun legislation to Annapolis that handgun maker, Barretta, headquartered in Prince George's County, have announced today that they are planning on leaving MD for a state with a more "reasonable" take on their business. Probably Texas.

[The_Graygator]

Now boycott selling to the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service topo and make them buy their weapons through the public markets like everyone else.

[wygator]

Looks like California has some promising legislation on the horizon.

Please explain why you believe this is promising.

In addition, wouldn't you have to alter or repeal the second amendment for these
levels of restrictions to pass muster?

[mdgator05]

No doubt...I'm sure the forced confiscation of semi-autos from law-abiding citizens will keep them out of the criminals' hands....

Expect to see a drastic reduction of murders in South Central.

:laugh::laugh:

How do criminals get these weapons? I am not just talking the last transaction. My question is how does the gun move from the factory to the hands of the criminal?

[HudsonGator]

Please explain why you believe this is promising.

In addition, wouldn't you have to alter or repeal the second amendment for these
levels of restrictions to pass muster?


No, not really. Even with the current Supreme Court's (5 of them anyway) tortured interpretation of the Second Amendment, these types of restrictions would still be a perfectly valid exercise of the police powers of a State.

And to answer your first question. I have expressed my views on this board previously that in my opinion this country needs to disarm. California seems to be moving in that direction, which is a good thing.

[GatorMid]

How do criminals get these weapons? I am not just talking the last transaction. My question is how does the gun move from the factory to the hands of the criminal?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to pop a cap in yo ass....

Honestly I have no idea...but I'd assume there's a flourishing black market out there for such things.

[mdgator05]

I could tell you, but then I'd have to pop a cap in yo ass....

Honestly I have no idea...but I'd assume there's a flourishing black market out there for such things.

What supplies this black market? If you look at drugs, this is a fairly easy question. It is supplied by criminal organizations in a variety of countries engaging in the growth, production, transportation, smuggling, and distribution of drugs.

However, illegal guns come heavily from 2 sources: Licensed gun dealers acting in an illegal manner and the theft of legal guns. One of the primary methods in which licensed gun dealers act in an illegal manner is through straw purchases, in which one person who can buy a gun buys a gun for a person who can't legally buy a gun.

So two of the major methods by which illegal guns are initially obtained in an illegal manner, theft and straw purchases, would probably be affected by a semi-automatic gun ban. If far fewer people had them in stores or at homes, fewer people would have them stolen. In addition, with lower availability in stores, straw purchases would be more difficult.

So maybe you shouldn't have mocked the idea that banning the legal sale of a gun would have an effect on the illegal availability of that weapon.

[wygator]

What supplies this black market? If you look at drugs, this is a fairly easy question. It is supplied by criminal organizations in a variety of countries engaging in the growth, production, transportation, smuggling, and distribution of drugs.

However, illegal guns come heavily from 2 sources: Licensed gun dealers acting in an illegal manner and the theft of legal guns. One of the primary methods in which licensed gun dealers act in an illegal manner is through straw purchases, in which one person who can buy a gun buys a gun for a person who can't legally buy a gun.

So two of the major methods by which illegal guns are initially obtained in an illegal manner, theft and straw purchases, would probably be affected by a semi-automatic gun ban. If far fewer people had them in stores or at homes, fewer people would have them stolen. In addition, with lower availability in stores, straw purchases would be more difficult.

So maybe you shouldn't have mocked the idea that banning the legal sale of a gun would have an effect on the illegal availability of that weapon.

If the these two supplies were to dwindle, don't you expect that the import of illegal guns to the US from out of the country would grow, like the drug trade? There's little illegal importing now because there's no market for it right now. With widespread gun bans, that would change.

[neisgator]

Please explain why you believe this is promising.

In addition, wouldn't you have to alter or repeal the second amendment for these
levels of restrictions to pass muster?

He doesn't like the 2nd amendment

[mdgator05]

If the these two supplies were to dwindle, don't you expect that the import of illegal guns to the US from out of the country would grow, like the drug trade? There's little illegal importing now because there's no market for it right now. With widespread gun bans, that would change.

Possibly. The question becomes how much money can be made in the illegal importation of guns. A gun produced in Russia or China will cost the smuggler a decent amount in those locations. Drugs are exceptionally cheap in raw format. Guns are more expensive. So you would need to either see a massive increase in the price, which can only occur if the demand would survive a large price increase, or a fairly low economic cost, which includes punishments for being caught, likelihood of being caught, cost of the good initially, etc, to the smuggling of guns.

It is entirely possible that this situation exists. But guns are harder to smuggle than drugs, so with proper enforcement, the smuggling could probably be limited to only those at the very high end of willingness to pay. For example, how many people do you think would purchase a gun if we could artificially raise the price of an illegal gun to say $15,000?

[GatorMid]

What supplies this black market? If you look at drugs, this is a fairly easy question. It is supplied by criminal organizations in a variety of countries engaging in the growth, production, transportation, smuggling, and distribution of drugs.

However, illegal guns come heavily from 2 sources: Licensed gun dealers acting in an illegal manner and the theft of legal guns. One of the primary methods in which licensed gun dealers act in an illegal manner is through straw purchases, in which one person who can buy a gun buys a gun for a person who can't legally buy a gun.

So two of the major methods by which illegal guns are initially obtained in an illegal manner, theft and straw purchases, would probably be affected by a semi-automatic gun ban. If far fewer people had them in stores or at homes, fewer people would have them stolen. In addition, with lower availability in stores, straw purchases would be more difficult.

So maybe you shouldn't have mocked the idea that banning the legal sale of a gun would have an effect on the illegal availability of that weapon.

Cut off your nose to spite your face....

Now we're back to the making cars illegal to reduce DUIs argument.

Sure, they'd be tougher to come by....but they'd be come by none the less.

And many law abiding citizens would be less safe.

[wygator]

Possibly. The question becomes how much money can be made in the illegal importation of guns. A gun produced in Russia or China will cost the smuggler a decent amount in those locations. Drugs are exceptionally cheap in raw format. Guns are more expensive. So you would need to either see a massive increase in the price, which can only occur if the demand would survive a large price increase, or a fairly low economic cost, which includes punishments for being caught, likelihood of being caught, cost of the good initially, etc, to the smuggling of guns.

It is entirely possible that this situation exists. But guns are harder to smuggle than drugs, so with proper enforcement, the smuggling could probably be limited to only those at the very high end of willingness to pay. For example, how many people do you think would purchase a gun if we could artificially raise the price of an illegal gun to say $15,000?

Some drugs are often smuggled in by the ton. I'm sure they'd figure out how to do guns. Handguns aren't that large. The market would figure out the pricing.

[mdgator05]

Some drugs are often smuggled in by the ton. I'm sure they'd figure out how to do guns. Handguns aren't that large. The market would figure out the pricing.

Oh I would imagine they would bring in guns as well. The issue is that the price per pound of guns would likely be much lower than the price per pound of drug (and much more difficult to ship). So they would need to be rewarded at a very high level (pricing). The market would figure out pricing. But the question is, how many guns would be sold for the price that those willing to import them would be willing to accept? Given the high expense at purchase in the foreign country, the high risk of being caught, the high penalties to being caught, and the high likelihood of being caught (as gun deals are different from drug deals in that they are the sale of a durable good compared to a high volume consumable, so a street offender caught with an illegal gun would easily be able to roll back up to the next level up the distribution chain, who would then easily roll up to the next level, etc), that price would be very high. And due to this, the demand would likely be low.

[wygator]

Oh I would imagine they would bring in guns as well. The issue is that the price per pound of guns would likely be much lower than the price per pound of drug (and much more difficult to ship). So they would need to be rewarded at a very high level (pricing). The market would figure out pricing. But the question is, how many guns would be sold for the price that those willing to import them would be willing to accept? Given the high expense at purchase in the foreign country, the high risk of being caught, the high penalties to being caught, and the high likelihood of being caught (as gun deals are different from drug deals in that they are the sale of a durable good compared to a high volume consumable, so a street offender caught with an illegal gun would easily be able to roll back up to the next level up the distribution chain, who would then easily roll up to the next level, etc), that price would be very high. And due to this, the demand would likely be low.

Shipping a ton of goods is shipping a ton of goods. No harder to move guns than marijuana. I think you're underestimating the desire of some to acquire them and overestimating the ultimate cost. Would it have the same profit profile as drugs? Not likely. Would it still be possible to make good money at it? Of course.

[mdgator05]

Cut off your nose to spite your face....

Now we're back to the making cars illegal to reduce DUIs argument.

Sure, they'd be tougher to come by....but they'd be come by none the less.

And many law abiding citizens would be less safe.

Cars have a function other than driving drunk. Many guns have limited purpose outside of killing people. But beyond that, restricting care would indeed limit the number of DUIs. We have just determined that the functional benefits of driving cars, which do not include Driving Under the Influence, would likely outweigh the benefits of banning cars. I am not sure we have data to back that same conclusion about semi-automatic guns.

No doubt some people would come by those guns. However, scale is an important variable. The number of people with those guns would likely be much smaller as the price would explode.

And what you mean to say is that some law abiding citizens would feel less safe. You have provided no statistical evidence that restricting gun supplies actually make the citizenry less safe.

[GatorMid]

Cars have a function other than driving drunk. Many guns have limited purpose outside of killing people. But beyond that, restricting care would indeed limit the number of DUIs. We have just determined that the functional benefits of driving cars, which do not include Driving Under the Influence, would likely outweigh the benefits of banning cars. I am not sure we have data to back that same conclusion about semi-automatic guns.

No doubt some people would come by those guns. However, scale is an important variable. The number of people with those guns would likely be much smaller as the price would explode.

And what you mean to say is that some law abiding citizens would feel less safe. You have provided no statistical evidence that restricting gun supplies actually make the citizenry less safe.

Thanks for telling me what I really means, but all the same, why should those law abiding citizens have to feel less safe? They've done nothing wrong....

I don't get into the whole statistics thing - I stand on my principles that we shouldn't limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves with semi-auto guns if they so desire, just for the sake of trying to make it tougher for criminals (who by definition are law-breakers) to obtain them - they whole argument is back-assward to me.

But I hear Chicago and other places have extremely high gun crime rates despite more strict gun laws - there's some evidence for ya.

[wygator]

Cars have a function other than driving drunk. Many guns have limited purpose outside of killing people. But beyond that, restricting care would indeed limit the number of DUIs. We have just determined that the functional benefits of driving cars, which do not include Driving Under the Influence, would likely outweigh the benefits of banning cars. I am not sure we have data to back that same conclusion about semi-automatic guns.

No doubt some people would come by those guns. However, scale is an important variable. The number of people with those guns would likely be much smaller as the price would explode.

And what you mean to say is that some law abiding citizens would feel less safe. You have provided no statistical evidence that restricting gun supplies actually make the citizenry less safe.

99.999% of the firearms in this country will never kill a human being so you can not honestly say that is their primary purpose. There are millions of Americans who enjoy target shooting and hunting.

However, when it comes to the second amendment, hunting is not mentioned. It is not a qualification for restricting gun rights to limit it to needs for hunting.

[mdgator05]

Shipping a ton of goods is shipping a ton of goods. No harder to move guns than marijuana. I think you're underestimating the desire of some to acquire them and overestimating the ultimate cost. Would it have the same profit profile as drugs? Not likely. Would it still be possible to make good money at it? Of course.

Not exactly. I could ship a ton of cotton balls and a ton of iron. Which do you think would take a larger space and be easier to detect? Guns are fundamentally not shaped for easy shipping. They are not compressible. Drugs can be compressed into incredibly dense and small places. This is very good for smuggling.

The profit profile for drugs is what motivates people to engage in the business, as the associated costs are exceptionally high. Basically, you get people who value monetary gains at a very high level or who value those costs at very low levels. If you lower the profit margin, then you restrict the supply of people who are willing to do it. That doesn't mean it goes to zero. It is simply lower, which again raises the price.

[mdgator05]

Thanks for telling me what I really means, but all the same, why should those law abiding citizens have to feel less safe? They've done nothing wrong....

I don't get into the whole statistics thing - I stand on my principles that we shouldn't limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves with semi-auto guns if they so desire, just for the sake of trying to make it tougher for criminals (who by definition are law-breakers) to obtain them - they whole argument is back-assward to me.

But I hear Chicago and other places have extremely high gun crime rates despite more strict gun laws - there's some evidence for ya.

For the same reason that I have to observe speed limits despite the fact that I have never caused an accident. Or for the same reason that I can't make homemade explosives in my backyard despite my lack of desire to hurt people with them.

I know that Chicago has become everybody's favorite piece of anecdotal evidence, but statistically, assault weapons bans are associated with lower gun deaths (as are trigger locks and safe gun storage requirements).

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/Gun%20ViolenceEDIT.jpg

[GatorMid]

For the same reason that I have to observe speed limits despite the fact that I have never caused an accident. Or for the same reason that I can't make homemade explosives in my backyard despite my lack of desire to hurt people with them.

I know that Chicago has become everybody's favorite piece of anecdotal evidence, but statistically, assault weapons bans are associated with lower gun deaths (as are trigger locks and safe gun storage requirements).

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/Gun%20ViolenceEDIT.jpg

Were you ever given a constitutional right to speed?

Get back to me when the number of guns used in murders as a percentage of the total amount gets in the same stratosphere as a similar percentage of vehicles operators who break traffic laws.

Your answer seems to be to punish the EXTREME majority of gunowners through legislation that will "hopefully" curb the gun violence of the EXTREME minority of ~Lawbreakers~. It makes absolutely no sense and is morally wrong.

[helix139]

For the same reason that I have to observe speed limits despite the fact that I have never caused an accident.

Because you don't like generating revenue for the state? Speed limits are as much a way to tax the public as they are about safety. Same goes with those red light cameras. Of course, driving is not a constitutional right either

Or for the same reason that I can't make homemade explosives in my backyard despite my lack of desire to hurt people with them.

Actually you can make homemade explosives. They just have to be low strength (think small fireworks) or you have to meet certain storage and licensing requirements depending on how much damage they are capable of doing. Explosives generally don't fall under the definition of "arms" in the second amendment, and even if it did, the current manner in which they are regulated would meet even strict scrutiny requirements

I know that Chicago has become everybody's favorite piece of anecdotal evidence, but statistically, assault weapons bans are associated with lower gun deaths (as are trigger locks and safe gun storage requirements).

Trigger locks pretty much make any gun useless in the event of an invasion and can pretty easily be defeated if the gun is stolen. Gun safe requirements I think of a little differently: for some, they are completely appropriate. For others who have no danger of kids or someone mentally ill accidentally getting a hold of the gun, they are not really necessary except when you aren't home. Another problem is that the safes that allow quick access that can be opened under pressure (via biometrics, etc) either are hit or miss when it comes to unlocking or are very expensive.

IMO, just make it illegal with heavy penalties if a gun is stolen and used in a crime due to negligent storage, but there is no need to make criminals out of those who really do have no need to lock their guns up at all times except when they are shooting them at someone. There is also the matter that Heller found that to legislatively render a gun inoperational for all intents and purposes for personal defense is unconstitutional and the same as banning the gun outright.

[mdgator05]

Were you ever given a constitutional right to speed?

Get back to me when the number of guns used in murders as a percentage of the total amount gets in the same stratosphere as a similar percentage of vehicles operators who break traffic laws.

Your answer seems to be to punish the EXTREME majority of gunowners through legislation that will "hopefully" curb the gun violence of the EXTREME minority of ~Lawbreakers~. It makes absolutely no sense and is morally wrong.

Apparently I wasn't given the constitutional right to own many arms, such as Surface-to-Air Missiles either.

But I guess we are already punishing those legal gun owners by not allowing them to have these arms. So that must make no sense and is morally wrong as well, right?

[mdgator05]

Because you don't like generating revenue for the state? Speed limits are as much a way to tax the public as they are about safety. Same goes with those red light cameras. Of course, driving is not a constitutional right either



Actually you can make homemade explosives. They just have to be low strength (think small fireworks) or you have to meet certain storage and licensing requirements depending on how much damage they are capable of doing. Explosives generally don't fall under the definition of "arms" in the second amendment, and even if it did, the current manner in which they are regulated would meet even strict scrutiny requirements



Trigger locks pretty much make any gun useless in the event of an invasion and can pretty easily be defeated if the gun is stolen. Gun safe requirements I think of a little differently: for some, they are completely appropriate. For others who have no danger of kids or someone mentally ill accidentally getting a hold of the gun, they are not really necessary except when you aren't home. Another problem is that the safes that allow quick access that can be opened under pressure (via biometrics, etc) either are hit or miss when it comes to unlocking or are very expensive.

IMO, just make it illegal with heavy penalties if a gun is stolen and used in a crime due to negligent storage, but there is no need to make criminals out of those who really do have no need to lock their guns up at all times except when they are shooting them at someone. There is also the matter that Heller found that to legislatively render a gun inoperational for all intents and purposes for personal defense is unconstitutional and the same as banning the gun outright.

I have proposed this as a solution before (high penalties for not storing guns safely).

Why shouldn't explosives be considered an arm? Don't tell me that it isn't. I am aware of that. Why shouldn't it be?

[GatorMid]

Apparently I wasn't given the constitutional right to own many arms, such as Surface-to-Air Missiles either.

But I guess we are already punishing those legal gun owners by not allowing them to have these arms. So that must make no sense and is morally wrong as well, right?

Maybe, but what's done is done. One big issue I personally have is the "give an inch, take a yard" mentality of the gun control crowd.

Once legislation goes into effect and you're proven wrong about a decline in gun violence (or violence in general), they'll come after the semi-auto shotguns, and so on and so forth.

You continue to ignore the point that you'll be severely punishing an extremely inordinate amount of law abiding citizens to keep criminals from breaking the law - something that they'll be doing regardless of the law enacted to stop them. It makes no sense.

[mdgator05]

Maybe, but what's done is done. One big issue I personally have is the "give an inch, take a yard" mentality of the gun control crowd.

Once legislation goes into effect and you're proven wrong about a decline in gun violence (or violence in general), they'll come after the semi-auto shotguns, and so on and so forth.

You continue to ignore the point that you'll be severely punishing an extremely inordinate amount of law abiding citizens to keep criminals from breaking the law - something that they'll be doing regardless of the law enacted to stop them. It makes no sense.

So have I been severely punished in not having the right to a surface-to-air missile?

And you simply assume I would be proven wrong. Given the relationship between assault weapon bans and lower gun crime rates, why would you make that assumption? It isn't backed by data.

[helix139]

I have proposed this as a solution before (high penalties for not storing guns safely).

Not the same thing. In my solution, if there is no harm there is no foul and it is left up to the individual to weigh their own risks. In yours, a single guy who lives alone and keeps his pistol accessible in his nightstand as opposed to locking it up every night in a safe is punished despite there being no real danger of the gun being stolen.

Why shouldn't explosives be considered an arm? Don't tell me that it isn't. I am aware of that. Why shouldn't it be?

For the same reason an 18 wheeler shouldn't be considered a car. Arms of the time of the 2nd amendment were generally understood to mean individually carried weapons that generally don't cause significant collateral damage. Ordinance was generally considered to be cannons and the like and were never protected. There wasn't really a definition of explosives as they weren't really used by the military at the time, but in function explosives would be significantly closer to ordinance than arms, as they cause indiscriminate devastation on a large scale as opposed to comparatively limited damage caused by a targeted bullet, slug, or shot shell

[GatorMid]

So have I been severely punished in not having the right to a surface-to-air missile?

And you simply assume I would be proven wrong. Given the relationship between assault weapon bans and lower gun crime rates, why would you make that assumption? It isn't backed by data.

Not yet, but that's not the point. Cruise missiles aren't exactly commonplace in this country - thugs with guns wanting to rape/murder/burglarize sadly are...

Earlier you seemed to lump all semi-autos into the same category - is it just "assault weapons" you're after now? What exactly is an "assault weapon"?

I can carry three 10-round clips and get them all off pretty quickly - not too much longer than one may take to get off a single 30 rounder.

Or are the AR 15's just a little too scary looking....

I waterfowl hunt - I absolutely love it....and I love my 2 benelli semi-autos. Heading out on a snow goose hunt in a couple days and have already modified one of them to be able to hold extra shells - if ARs are banned, the crazies and the thugs will still have plenty of options to carry out their sick intentions. And my guns will be on the short list to be banned.

Regardless, I wonder AGAIN, what the number of ARs used in crimes would look like as a percentage of those owned by law abiding citizens...and I continue to wonder why some want to punish so many by limiting their abilities to continue lawfully owning, in an effort to curb the unlawful activities of criminals that represent such a small fraction.

It's just not right.

[wargunfan]

Shipping a ton of goods is shipping a ton of goods. No harder to move guns than marijuana. I think you're underestimating the desire of some to acquire them and overestimating the ultimate cost. Would it have the same profit profile as drugs? Not likely. Would it still be possible to make good money at it? Of course.

An unlimited supply of guns will simply walk over the Arizona and New Mexico borders. Pipelines for a black market in weapons will thrive. The prices will be higher but not that much.

[PIMking]

No, not really. Even with the current Supreme Court's (5 of them anyway) tortured interpretation of the Second Amendment, these types of restrictions would still be a perfectly valid exercise of the police powers of a State.

And to answer your first question. I have expressed my views on this board previously that in my opinion this country needs to disarm. California seems to be moving in that direction, which is a good thing.

you can move to one of your liberal anti gun paradises like England if you want, no one is stopping you from leaving and you can be in your gun free double rainbow utopia like all the other unicorn riders

[PIMking]

What supplies this black market? .

The Federal Government and it's fast and furious programs

[HudsonGator]

you can move to one of your liberal anti gun paradises like England if you want, no one is stopping you from leaving and you can be in your gun free double rainbow utopia like all the other unicorn riders

No thanks, I'll just wait out you gun lovers, time is on our side.

Scalia isn't getting any younger.

And then you can move to Yemen to be around a bunch of other gun lovers.

[mdgator05]

Not the same thing. In my solution, if there is no harm there is no foul and it is left up to the individual to weigh their own risks. In yours, a single guy who lives alone and keeps his pistol accessible in his nightstand as opposed to locking it up every night in a safe is punished despite there being no real danger of the gun being stolen.



For the same reason an 18 wheeler shouldn't be considered a car. Arms of the time of the 2nd amendment were generally understood to mean individually carried weapons that generally don't cause significant collateral damage. Ordinance was generally considered to be cannons and the like and were never protected. There wasn't really a definition of explosives as they weren't really used by the military at the time, but in function explosives would be significantly closer to ordinance than arms, as they cause indiscriminate devastation on a large scale as opposed to comparatively limited damage caused by a targeted bullet, slug, or shot shell

Do we really need to go over how much collateral damage has been caused by gun usage in this country? If the test should be on the capability to cause collateral damage, it would seem likely that allowed guns would be limited to only the most accurate and easiest to handle guns.

[mdgator05]

Not yet, but that's not the point. Cruise missiles aren't exactly commonplace in this country - thugs with guns wanting to rape/murder/burglarize sadly are...

Earlier you seemed to lump all semi-autos into the same category - is it just "assault weapons" you're after now? What exactly is an "assault weapon"?

I can carry three 10-round clips and get them all off pretty quickly - not too much longer than one may take to get off a single 30 rounder.

Or are the AR 15's just a little too scary looking....

I waterfowl hunt - I absolutely love it....and I love my 2 benelli semi-autos. Heading out on a snow goose hunt in a couple days and have already modified one of them to be able to hold extra shells - if ARs are banned, the crazies and the thugs will still have plenty of options to carry out their sick intentions. And my guns will be on the short list to be banned.

Regardless, I wonder AGAIN, what the number of ARs used in crimes would look like as a percentage of those owned by law abiding citizens...and I continue to wonder why some want to punish so many by limiting their abilities to continue lawfully owning, in an effort to curb the unlawful activities of criminals that represent such a small fraction.

It's just not right.

And once again how did those "thugs" get guns? Stolen from legal gun owners and bought from legal gun dealers through straw purchases. Maybe the issue is that we need to cut their supply rather than getting into shootouts.

[mdgator05]

An unlimited supply of guns will simply walk over the Arizona and New Mexico borders. Pipelines for a black market in weapons will thrive. The prices will be higher but not that much.

Doubtful. I have no idea why you would switch over from drugs to guns without an absolutely amazing profit margin. Similar risks to operating as in the drug market. So it would require an astounding markup to make up for the amazing markup provided by operating in the drug market.

[PIMking]

No thanks, I'll just wait out you gun lovers, time is on our side.

Scalia isn't getting any younger.

And then you can move to Yemen to be around a bunch of other gun lovers.

:laugh:
you and you liberal baby boomers will die out before me

[helix139]

Do we really need to go over how much collateral damage has been caused by gun usage in this country? If the test should be on the capability to cause collateral damage, it would seem likely that allowed guns would be limited to only the most accurate and easiest to handle guns.

Well in that case, AR-15s would be at the top of the list as would most military weapons.

But there is a difference, and it's not total collateral damage, but collateral damage per discharge. Explosives are intended to cause indiscriminate damage by their very nature. Guns, though dangerous, don't have nearly that kind of destructive power in a single discharge. One discharge of a gun generally has the possibility of killing 1 person, maybe a couple given the right ammo and extremely unlikely circumstances, but for the most part the gun has to be aimed and the trigger has to be pulled in order to kill someone and nobody else is in danger except the person it is aimed at. Explosives will kill anyone and destroy anything in the blast radius with a single use and by their very nature tend to be volatile and unstable and more prone to going off accidentally with no action on the part of anyone.

[wygator]

Well in that case, AR-15s would be at the top of the list as would most military weapons.

But there is a difference, and it's not total collateral damage, but collateral damage per discharge. Explosives are intended to cause indiscriminate damage by their very nature. Guns, though dangerous, don't have nearly that kind of destructive power in a single discharge. One discharge of a gun generally has the possibility of killing 1 person, maybe a couple given the right ammo and extremely unlikely circumstances, but for the most part the gun has to be aimed and the trigger has to be pulled in order to kill someone and nobody else is in danger except the person it is aimed at. Explosives will kill anyone and destroy anything in the blast radius with a single use and by their very nature tend to be volatile and unstable and more prone to going off accidentally with no action on the part of anyone.

A complete assault weapon ban would have little effect on gun homicides because most are committed with handguns.

[helix139]

A complete assault weapon ban would have little effect on gun homicides because most are committed with handguns.

You're preaching to the choir dude I was simply saying that ARs and military style rifles would be at the top of the list in terms of accuracy and controllability.

[Lawdog88]

A complete assault weapon ban would have little effect on gun homicides because most are committed with handguns.


By far, the weapon of choice, as the post-assault ban, government funded study proved in spades.

[HudsonGator]

A complete assault weapon ban would have little effect on gun homicides because most are committed with handguns.

Maybe, but there would probably be several kids still alive in Newtown if assault weapons were banned. That alone makes it worth it.

[mdgator05]

A complete assault weapon ban would have little effect on gun homicides because most are committed with handguns.

Then why do we see results like this on a state-by-state level:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/Gun%20ViolenceEDIT.jpg

[helix139]

Maybe, but there would probably be several kids still alive in Newtown if assault weapons were banned. That alone makes it worth it.

The killer in Newtown left his AR-15 in his trunk. It was not used in the shooting. He used pistols.

And as far as the "worth it" part, not to sound callous, as the loss of each life was certainly tragic, but statistically it is not significant at all. These mass shootings are outliers and the result would be giving up a significant class of personal defense tool to possibly save an extremely small number of lives. For all we know, the Newtown killer would have used Fertilizer and Gasoline and made a bomb and blown up the school if he couldn't get a hold of a pistol. It's simply not worth it, IMO, as when these weapons are eventually needed in wide use (and at some point they will be), the cost of not having them for the people of this country will be catastrophic even moreso than all of our mass shootings combined.

[HudsonGator]

The killer in Newtown left his AR-15 in his trunk. It was not used in the shooting. He used pistols.

You need to stop reading and/or listening to wherever you are getting your information, the NRA, Fox News, some gun freak website, etc. The truth is every one of those kids died as a result of a bullet from an assault weapon.

Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.

All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.

"It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.

Multiple Second Amendment and gun owner websites have attempted to cast doubts on whether the Bushmaster XM-15, a type of AR-15 rifle that is currently legal, was used in the Dec. 14 carnage done by Lanza....

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php

And as far as the "worth it" part, not to sound callous, as the loss of each life was certainly tragic, but statistically it is not significant at all. These mass shootings are outliers and the result would be giving up a significant class of personal defense tool to possibly save an extremely small number of lives. For all we know, the Newtown killer would have used Fertilizer and Gasoline and made a bomb and blown up the school if he couldn't get a hold of a pistol. It's simply not worth it, IMO, as when these weapons are eventually needed in wide use (and at some point they will be), the cost of not having them for the people of this country will be catastrophic even moreso than all of our mass shootings combined.

Sorry, but your "right" to have an assault weapon is not worth more than one single child's life. You don't need an AR-15 to shoot deer and you certainly don't need one to defend yourself. Just as society has come to terms with the idea that people don't need machine guns, we need to accept that citizens don't need assault weapons.

Pistols, shotguns and standard hunting rifles should be more than sufficient to make you gun people happy.

[gatorpa]

The Federal Government and it's fast and furious programs

Love it!!

[gatorpa]

No thanks, I'll just wait out you gun lovers, time is on our side.

Scalia isn't getting any younger.

And then you can move to Yemen to be around a bunch of other gun lovers.

240 years or so, I would not hold your breath

[Lawdog88]

Maybe, but there would probably be several kids still alive in Newtown if assault weapons were banned. That alone makes it worth it.


Your implied argument that all lawful owners of military-styled firearms - who have committed no illegal act with said firearms - should be required to give up their right to own them, either out of some kind of transferred guilt about Newtown or because of the false notion that, in doing so, no person will ever be killed by a military-styled firearm in the future, is a stupid one.

[Minister_of_Information]

Maybe, but there would probably be several kids still alive in Newtown if assault weapons were banned. That alone makes it worth it.

Sorry, but liberty is a value that is more fundamental than the illusion of safety and the expiation of irrational guilt. At least in the opinion of some.

[wygator]

You need to stop reading and/or listening to wherever you are getting your information, the NRA, Fox News, some gun freak website, etc. The truth is every one of those kids died as a result of a bullet from an assault weapon.



http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php



Sorry, but your "right" to have an assault weapon is not worth more than one single child's life. You don't need an AR-15 to shoot deer and you certainly don't need one to defend yourself. Just as society has come to terms with the idea that people don't need machine guns, we need to accept that citizens don't need assault weapons.

Pistols, shotguns and standard hunting rifles should be more than sufficient to make you gun people happy.

Sorry, but you're just not getting it. An assault weapon is simply a rifle with a pistol grip or some other cosmetic addition. It usually shoots a 22LR or .223 Remington round. The most popular handguns are 9mm, 38ACP, 38 special, 40 S & W, 45 and 357 Magnum. All are a larger caliber and more damaging than the most common "assault weapons".

He could have done the same thing, just as fast, with a couple of handguns, or a few extra magazines. It's the crazy person behind the gun...not the gun.

It is a horrific event...shooting the kids one by one in that classroom. By all accounts he wasn't rushed, so the size of the magazine was not a contributing factor. He could have poured gasoline all over the room and set it on fire if he was that determined to commit mass murder, which he apparently was.

[wygator]

Then why do we see results like this on a state-by-state level:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/Gun%20ViolenceEDIT.jpg

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Maybe if I had the accompanying article.

Please explain what you want me to understand from this graph.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Many guns have limited purpose outside of killing people.

You think self defense is a "limited purpose?"

[HudsonGator]

240 years or so, I would not hold your breath

Times change, peoples' attitudes change.

Civil rights took 200 years, but we got there.

Gay rights took a couple of thousand years, be we are getting there.

A rational discussion on guns may in fact take another 20 years, but we are getting there.

Having someone like Mayor Bloomberg out in front of this issue certainly helps.

We'll get there, we'll get there...

[HudsonGator]

Your implied argument that all lawful owners of military-styled firearms - who have committed no illegal act with said firearms - should be required to give up their right to own them, either out of some kind of transferred guilt about Newtown or because of the false notion that, in doing so, no person will ever be killed by a military-styled firearm in the future, is a stupid one.

Just as we currently prohibit the private ownership of machine guns and atomic bombs, I don't see are reason why we cannot also prohibit the private ownership of assault weapons which truly have no legitimate purpose. One does not need an assault weapon to hunt, nor does one need an assault weapon to defend yourself. I fail to see the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic assault weapons.

Sorry, but liberty is a value that is more fundamental than the illusion of safety and the expiation of irrational guilt. At least in the opinion of some.

Here we go again with this silly argument.

I reject the premise that one's liberty is somehow inexorably linked with one's ability to own an assault weapon.

We have prohibited the private ownership of machine guns since the 1930's and yet our democracy has endured....

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I reject the premise that one's liberty is somehow inexorably linked with one's ability to own an assault weapon.

Read the constitution.

[HudsonGator]

Read the constitution.

I have, and the funny thing is that it doesn't mention assault weapons...

Since you obviously are the Constitutional scholar here, do you think perhaps that is because in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted the only firearms available were single shot muskets and rifles?

Tell you what, I will go along with that, every American should be able to own a single shot musket or rifle.

Happy now?

[helix139]

You need to stop reading and/or listening to wherever you are getting your information, the NRA, Fox News, some gun freak website, etc. The truth is every one of those kids died as a result of a bullet from an assault weapon.

Mea culpa. Either way, the choice of weapon was really an irrelevant factor in the number killed in Newtown. All the victims were unarmed and he was not in any kind of hurry. He could have gotten the exact same results with a break action shotgun.


Sorry, but your "right" to have an assault weapon is not worth more than one single child's life. You don't need an AR-15 to shoot deer and you certainly don't need one to defend yourself. Just as society has come to terms with the idea that people don't need machine guns, we need to accept that citizens don't need assault weapons.

Pistols, shotguns and standard hunting rifles should be more than sufficient to make you gun people happy.

The second amendment says nothing about hunting, and I don't think anyone here has made the argument that an AR-15 is needed for hunting, so nice straw man.

As far as defense, who the heck are you to tell someone what they "need" to defend themselves? An AR-15 might not be "needed" in all situations, but can certainly result in increased odds of survival with less collateral damage in many situations due to the modular nature of the weapon system, ease of operation, and the cartridge used.

You would choose to deny the vast majority of AR-15 owners the constitutional ability to defend themselves in the manner they see fit based on an extreme and screwed up minority that are determined to kill and would likely find other ways to do so if they couldn't get their hands on an AR-15. Someone like Adam Lanza would not have been stopped by an assault weapons ban.

And this doesn't even consider the SHTF scenerio, which will happen eventually, as it does with every nation if History is an indicator.

[helix139]

Just as we currently prohibit the private ownership of machine guns and atomic bombs, I don't see are reason why we cannot also prohibit the private ownership of assault weapons which truly have no legitimate purpose.

Their militia purpose is legitimate. As is their use for lawful defense of oneself and others. And FYI we don't prohibit private ownership of machine guns.

One does not need an assault weapon to hunt,

Strawman

nor does one need an assault weapon to defend yourself.

Says who?

I fail to see the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic assault weapons.

I fail to see how someone who served in the military can make this statement with a straight face.



Here we go again with this silly argument.

I reject the premise that one's liberty is somehow inexorably linked with one's ability to own an assault weapon.

We have prohibited the private ownership of machine guns since the 1930's and yet our democracy has endured....

At the time machine guns were restricted (NOT prohibited), they were not in wide use by the military or law enforcement. They were primarily used by gangsters as they were prohibitively expensive and only good at close range. Thus, their restriction was justified at the time by their lack of militia purpose. If you'll notice, though, we've had an increasing police state since that time as the police have largely become paramilitary and equipped with the same assault weapons now used by the military.

They also have a tendency in many places to trample citizens rights and get away with it because they have bigger guns than most individual citizens. What we really need is to revisit and loosen the restrictions on common military arms such as the M4, M14, and M16 to level the playing field for the law abiding citizen.

[Minister_of_Information]

The bottom line is that Hudson rejects not only the militia function but an armed populace in any form. So he's making a distinction without a difference.

[HudsonGator]

Mea culpa. Either way, the choice of weapon was really an irrelevant factor in the number killed in Newtown. All the victims were unarmed and he was not in any kind of hurry. He could have gotten the exact same results with a break action shotgun.


Unless you were there, you have no way of knowing that. It is entirely possible that some of those kids would be alive today if he didn't have a weapon that could fire 30 rounds before it needed to be reloaded.


The second amendment says nothing about hunting, and I don't think anyone here has made the argument that an AR-15 is needed for hunting, so nice straw man.

As far as defense, who the heck are you to tell someone what they "need" to defend themselves? An AR-15 might not be "needed" in all situations, but can certainly result in increased odds of survival with less collateral damage in many situations due to the modular nature of the weapon system, ease of operation, and the cartridge used.

You would choose to deny the vast majority of AR-15 owners the constitutional ability to defend themselves in the manner they see fit based on an extreme and screwed up minority that are determined to kill and would likely find other ways to do so if they couldn't get their hands on an AR-15. Someone like Adam Lanza would not have been stopped by an assault weapons ban.

We already limit people's ability to defend themselves. That is nothing new.

I am sure there are lots of folks out there who would love to have a fully automatic assault weapon to "defend themselves."

Why do we limit the ability to own machine guns and atomic weapons if we, as a society, do not have a right to decide what is legitimately needed?

The fact is we have already made that decision, simply moving assault weapons across the line from legal to illegal is hardly an Earth shattering event.

And this doesn't even consider the SHTF scenerio, which will happen eventually, as it does with every nation if History is an indicator.

Ah the old Mad Max scenario...can't really help you there. Go build your bunker and wait....

[Lawdog88]

Just as we currently prohibit the private ownership of machine guns and atomic bombs, I don't see are reason why we cannot also prohibit the private ownership of assault weapons which truly have no legitimate purpose. One does not need an assault weapon to hunt, nor does one need an assault weapon to defend yourself. I fail to see the difference between machine guns and semi-automatic assault weapons.

Here we go again with this silly argument.

I reject the premise that one's liberty is somehow inexorably linked with one's ability to own an assault weapon.

We have prohibited the private ownership of machine guns since the 1930's and yet our democracy has endured....


Who told you to say that ? Bill Matthews ? Rachel Madow ? :laugh:

First, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon." By definition, any weapon lawfully used for self defense could be characterized as an "assault weapon," as the person wielding it most certainly would be using it to assault the perpetrator committing a criminal act.

Unless your disingenuous objective is really, the confiscation of all such weapons - which it is, I realize - then by virtue of them existing in the real world, I have a 2nd Amendment right to lawfully own and possess one, for my self defense and protection against the unlawful use of one such weapon against me.

So just come on out and say it, i.e., that the only way in your world the alleged harm can be eliminated from any such weapon that can be so characterized as an "assault weapon," is to confiscate them. Which is what you want.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I have, and the funny thing is that it doesn't mention assault weapons...

Indeed. So, describe one for me please. Be specific.

[HudsonGator]

Their militia purpose is legitimate. As is their use for lawful defense of oneself and others. And FYI we don't prohibit private ownership of machine guns.


We still have a militia, it now called the National Guard. It serves a necessary role in our Nation. What's our point?


I fail to see how someone who served in the military can make this statement with a straight face.


I did and quite easily.

[HudsonGator]

Indeed. So, describe one for me please. Be specific.

I assume you asking me to describe an assault weapon?

To me it is easy, any rifle or shotgun with a detachable magazine.

So for all you non-Mad Max wannabe survivalists out there, you can still have hunt, protect your home (although I would recommend a pistol in close quarters) and target shoot as much as you like.

[Lawdog88]

Unless you were there, you have no way of knowing that. It is entirely possible that some of those kids would be alive today if he didn't have a weapon that could fire 30 rounds before it needed to be reloaded. [You are speculating, without knowing. See, e.g., Virginia Tech.]

We already limit people's ability to defend themselves. That is nothing new. [I agree. See below.]

I am sure there are lots of folks out there who would love to have a fully automatic assault weapon to "defend themselves." [A lot of people own fully automatic weapons . . . lawfully.]

Why do we limit the ability to own machine guns and atomic weapons if we, as a society, do not have a right to decide what is legitimately needed? [The idea is that the individual need to defend oneself naturally should consider the type of individual attack that is possible. It is not possible to be attacked by nuclear weapons, tanks, mortars, etc., and those items are not available to the individual - as you have implicitly admitted above. Kind of absurdly elemental, one would think, but apparently the idea needs to be explained to the confiscation squad more than once.]

The fact is we have already made that decision, simply moving assault weapons across the line from legal to illegal is hardly a Earth shattering event.

Ah the old Mad Max scenario...can't really help you there. Go build your bunker and wait....

OK.

[HudsonGator]

You are speculating, without knowing. See, e.g., Virginia Tech.

I am not really sure what point you are trying to make. I said it is "entirely possible." Read first, type second.

A lot of people own fully automatic weapons . . . lawfully.

I suppose we need to define the term "a lot."

Regardless, I would be perfectly fine with the same limitation on the ownership of machine guns also being placed on semi-automatic assault weapons. How's that for compromise?

The idea is that the individual need to defend oneself naturally should consider the type of individual attack that is possible. It is not possible to be attacked by nuclear weapons, tanks, mortars, etc., and those items are not available to the individual - as you have implicitly admitted above. Kind of absurdly elemental, one would think, but apparently the idea needs to be explained to the confiscation squad more than once.

You simply refuse to address the issue. One more time, we already limit the ability of citizens to defend themselves with machine guns, how is applying that same limitation to assault weapons any different?

[baygator1]

However, illegal guns come heavily from 2 sources: Licensed gun dealers acting in an illegal manner and the theft of legal guns. One of the primary methods in which licensed gun dealers act in an illegal manner is through straw purchases, in which one person who can buy a gun buys a gun for a person who can't legally buy a gun.

I take special exception to this slanderous absurdity. The party acting illegally in nearly all straw purchases is the buyer who commits a felony by lying on the ATF form (#4473) required for gun purchases through a licensed dealer.

11a on the form:
Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

I understand that answering "yes" to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.

The vast majority of gun dealers value their business and the terms of the firearms license they hold. They will not jeopardize their business or that license by knowingly participating in a felony with a straw purchaser. Unless, of course, they are directed by the ATF to do it as part of some typical government jackassery like illegally funneling weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

[mdgator05]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Maybe if I had the accompanying article.

Please explain what you want me to understand from this graph.

The very strong negative correlation between gun deaths and the implementation of an assault rifle ban. So basically, areas with assault rifle bans have far lower gun death rates than areas without assault rifle bans. In addition, safe storage requirements and trigger locks seem to be associated with lower per capita gun crime rates. These effects dwarf the fairly minor effects of Inequality, Unemployment, Illegal Drug Use, Stress, Neuroticism, and Mental Illness.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I assume you asking me to describe an assault weapon?

To me it is easy, any rifle or shotgun with a detachable magazine.

So for all you non-Mad Max wannabe survivalists out there, you can still have hunt, protect your home (although I would recommend a pistol in close quarters) and target shoot as much as you like.

Not handguns? Most handguns sold today have detachable magazines.

Also, one can load ten rounds in some pump shotguns. As well as several models of rifles. No magazine is needed. In fact, there are a lot of rifles with detachable magazines that hold less than that. For example I own a .17 caliber rifle with a detachable magazine that only holds five rounds. That is an assault rifle, by your definition?

This is such a silly definition. As if a detachable magazine makes a weapon more lethal.

You are aware that more people are killed by hammers each year than by rifles of any kind? Assault rifles are a subset of that group.

[HudsonGator]

Not handguns? Most handguns sold today have detachable magazines.

Also, one can load ten rounds in some pump shotguns. As well as several models of rifles. In fact, there are a lot of rifles with detachable magazines that hold less than that. For example I own a .17 caliber rifle with a detachable magazine that only holds five rounds. That is an assault rifle, by your definition?

This is such a silly definition. As if a detachable magazine makes a weapon more lethal.

A detachable magazine absolutely makes a weapon more lethal, why else do you suppose every standard military issue rifle on the freaking planet has one? (hopefully you understand that that is a rhetorical question).

You asked for my definition and I gave it to you.

If you don't like it, tough.

[helix139]

Unless you were there, you have no way of knowing that. It is entirely possible that some of those kids would be alive today if he didn't have a weapon that could fire 30 rounds before it needed to be reloaded.

And you have no way of knowing whether or not he wouldn't have simply built an IED. He was screwed up in the head and determined to kill a lot of people and that is the reason why he did. Not any gun.


We already limit people's ability to defend themselves. That is nothing new.

I am sure there are lots of folks out there who would love to have a fully automatic assault weapon to "defend themselves."

Why do we limit the ability to own machine guns and atomic weapons if we, as a society, do not have a right to decide what is legitimately needed?

The fact is we have already made that decision, simply moving assault weapons across the line from legal to illegal is hardly a Earth shattering event.

From a legal perspective, you're looking at it the wrong way. It isn't "what does a person need to defend themselves" It's "A person has a right to defend themselves and therefore what is the least restrictive means to allow them to do so." Your line of thinking implies that any method of defense needs justification. The true legal thinking implies that any method and/or degree of restriction needs justification.

And as I pointed out, you can legally own a machine gun for self defense. Atomic Bombs are not arms under any accepted definition, and their restriction would meet any level of judicial scrutiny. Why you keep trying to equate them with machine guns or "assault rifles" is truly beyond me.

Ah the old Mad Max scenario...can't really help you there. Go build your bunker and wait....

Great argument. Make fun of/ridicule those who you disagree with rather than providing a cogent and logical argument as to why you think the scenario will never happen. You have some mad debate skills bro.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The very strong negative correlation between gun deaths and the implementation of an assault rifle ban. So basically, areas with assault rifle bans have far lower gun death rates than areas without assault rifle bans. In addition, safe storage requirements and trigger locks seem to be associated with lower per capita gun crime rates. These effects dwarf the fairly minor effects of Inequality, Unemployment, Illegal Drug Use, Stress, Neuroticism, and Mental Illness.

Did you know that violent crime in the USA has been trending down for quite some time. This in the face of more guns and more relaxed gun laws? No doubt there is a causal effect, right?

[Lawdog88]

1) I am not really sure what point you are trying to make. I said it is "entirely possible." Read first, type second.

2) I suppose we need to define the term "a lot."

3) Regardless, I would be perfectly fine with the same limitation on the ownership of machine guns also being placed on semi-automatic assault weapons. How's that for compromise?

4) You simply refuse to address the issue. One more time, we already limit the ability of citizens to defend themselves with machine guns, how is applying that same limitation to assault weapons any different?


1) It is entirely possible that your hypothetical is equally not true.

2) You can pull the ATF/Treasury statistics and define whatever you like.

3) I agree, you want them confiscated, but failing that, registered. I get it.

4) We regulate the ability of citizens to possess automatic firearms. We do not regulate the ability of citizens lawfully possessing them, from using those firearms to defend themselves. You know, just like the folks lawfully possessing your favorite firearm, the "assault weapon."

[helix139]

We still have a militia, it now called the National Guard. It serves a necessary role in our Nation. What's our point?

Wrong. The militia is the entire body of the people willing and able to take up arms in defense of self/country/constitution. NOT the national guard. There can be no other conclusion drawn rationally given what we know about the origins and history of the 2nd amendment.

I did and quite easily.

Were you a cook or something who has never fired the two?

[Minister_of_Information]

Even the Federally defined militia includes all able bodied men between 18 and 45 unless otherwise disqualified. But the people's militia goes beyond that.

[HudsonGator]

Great argument. Make fun of/ridicule those who you disagree with rather than providing a cogent and logical argument as to why you think the scenario will never happen. You have some mad debate skills bro.

I am afraid I cannot debate crazy. If you want to build your bunker and wait, go ahead and I will continue to ridicule you.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

A detachable magazine absolutely makes a weapon more lethal, why else do you suppose every standard military issue rifle on the freaking planet has one? (hopefully you understand that that is a rhetorical question).

You asked for my definition and I gave it to you.

If you don't like it, tough.

You asked why we can't ban assault rifles. We gave you an answer. In fact several answers. If you don't like them, tough.

[Minister_of_Information]

Arms can be regulated, but regulation based on the theory that there is no militia function is not legitimate. Or, tyrannical.

[helix139]

I am afraid I cannot debate

Fixed it for you

[HudsonGator]

Wrong. The militia is the entire body of the people willing and able to take up arms in defense of self/country/constitution. NOT the national guard. There can be no other conclusion drawn rationally given what we know about the origins and history of the 2nd amendment.?

Learn some history and then come back to me.

Oh well, I feel a little sorry for you, so I will help you out a bit. Once upon a time, there once was a thing called the militia, they were the ones who, by and large, fought the wars back in the late 18th Century. They were essentially every able bodied male in a colony.

The idea that every male should be ready to grab his gun and show up on the battlefield was, however, no longer feasible after the Civil War. Technology and tactics had made it an obsolete concept.

Fast forward to the early 20th Century, Congress reorganized the militia into the National Guard, which is what we have today.

Were you a cook or something who has never fired the two?

I was in the infantry, boy, did basic and AIT at Fort Benning, where do you serve, Rambo?

[HudsonGator]

I am sorry, Hudson, you are right. I need to quit reading Soldier of Fortune and playing Call of Duty on my X-box and actually become educated before I run my mouth again. Sorry.

Fixed it for you as well.

[PIMking]

Times change, peoples' attitudes change.

Civil rights took 200 years, but we got there.

Gay rights took a couple of thousand years, be we are getting there.

A rational discussion on guns may in fact take another 20 years, but we are getting there.

Having someone like Mayor Bloomberg out in front of this issue certainly helps.

We'll get there, we'll get there...

Someone that puts laws like making it illegal for large soda's? or someone who hates guns in civillian hands, yet sells the police departments brass to a company in GA to reload?

Bloomberg is just a douchebag that talks out one side of his ahole and farts out the other.

[PIMking]

I have, and the funny thing is that it doesn't mention assault weapons...

Since you obviously are the Constitutional scholar here, do you think perhaps that is because in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted the only firearms available were single shot muskets and rifles?

Tell you what, I will go along with that, every American should be able to own a single shot musket or rifle.

Happy now?

it does mention that rights shall not be infringed, however you neglected to remember that part.

[HudsonGator]

it does mention that rights shall not be infringed, however you neglected to remember that part.

I answered his question. Now go back to sleep.

[PIMking]

You need to stop reading and/or listening to wherever you are getting your information, the NRA, Fox News, some gun freak website, etc. The truth is every one of those kids died as a result of a bullet from an assault weapon.



http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php



Sorry, but your "right" to have an assault weapon is not worth more than one single child's life. You don't need an AR-15 to shoot deer and you certainly don't need one to defend yourself. Just as society has come to terms with the idea that people don't need machine guns, we need to accept that citizens don't need assault weapons.

Pistols, shotguns and standard hunting rifles should be more than sufficient to make you gun people happy.

Except the "assault rifle" was in his car after the shooting right? So why do you think people continue to bring up conspiracy theories with this thing because even the government cant get the information out correctly. The reason is because with muddy waters they can push their political agenda across and restrict the freedoms of Americans even more for their safety.

"when a government doesn't fear the people its tyranny, when the government fears it's people it's freedom" Thomas Jefferson.

I have yet to see anything saying that an actual .223 was used except a few people that say that the wounds had to come from a .223 rifle, yet no .223 was found in the school, how could that be? it was in his car right? so he ran back outside put the rilfe in the trunk and then ran in and off'ed himself? lol liberal gun grabbing nonsense

[PIMking]

Unless you were there, you have no way of knowing that. It is entirely possible that some of those kids would be alive today if he didn't have a weapon that could fire 30 rounds before it needed to be reloaded.




We already limit people's ability to defend themselves. That is nothing new.

I am sure there are lots of folks out there who would love to have a fully automatic assault weapon to "defend themselves."

Why do we limit the ability to own machine guns and atomic weapons if we, as a society, do not have a right to decide what is legitimately needed?

The fact is we have already made that decision, simply moving assault weapons across the line from legal to illegal is hardly an Earth shattering event.



Ah the old Mad Max scenario...can't really help you there. Go build your bunker and wait....

No because once you get one ban, others are following it. You even said it yourself that you want a gun ban completely and that this will speed up your process of doing so. History has shown that once registration gets passed, confiscation is soon to follow.

SAFETY!!!!

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

For someone that supposedly served in the military Hudson, you show an appalling lack of knowledge of firearms. And firearm laws.

[PIMking]

I assume you asking me to describe an assault weapon?

To me it is easy, any rifle or shotgun with a detachable magazine.

So for all you non-Mad Max wannabe survivalists out there, you can still have hunt, protect your home (although I would recommend a pistol in close quarters) and target shoot as much as you like.

Charles Whitman killed 14 with a Rem 700 bolt action rifle without a detachable magazine.... My bolt action rifle takes a detachable magazine so does that make it an "assault weapon"?

people are going to kill whether they have a detachable mag or fertilizer, but liberals don't see it that way, they would rather us be unarmed for their safety. Gun laws only protect the criminals, not the common civillian

[HudsonGator]

Except the "assault rifle" was in his car after the shooting right? So why do you think people continue to bring up conspiracy theories with this thing because even the government cant get the information out correctly. The reason is because with muddy waters they can push their political agenda across and restrict the freedoms of Americans even more for their safety.

"when a government doesn't fear the people its tyranny, when the government fears it's people it's freedom" Thomas Jefferson.

I have yet to see anything saying that an actual .223 was used except a few people that say that the wounds had to come from a .223 rifle, yet no .223 was found in the school, how could that be? it was in his car right? so he ran back outside put the rilfe in the trunk and then ran in and off'ed himself? lol liberal gun grabbing nonsense

I see you are one of those people (the conspiracy types).

Let's put this nonsense to bed right now. Every single one of those innocent kids was killed with an assault weapon. Sorry if that upsets your happy little make-believe world.

Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.

All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.

"It's all these conspiracy theorists (I think he is talking to you, PIM) that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.

Multiple Second Amendment and gun owner websites have attempted to cast doubts on whether the Bushmaster XM-15, a type of AR-15 rifle that is currently legal, was used in the Dec. 14 carnage done by Lanza....

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php

Maybe you need to rethink wherever it is that you get your information.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Charles Whitman killed 14 with a Rem 700 bolt action rifle without a detachable magazine....

Exactly the point. The man claims to have been in the military. But he knows little about weapons.

[helix139]

Learn some history and then come back to me.

Oh well, I feel a little sorry for you, so I will help you out a bit. Once upon a time, there once was a thing called the militia, they were the ones who, by and large, fought the wars back in the late 18th Century. They were essentially every able bodied male in a colony.

You're correct up until this point. Britain had the standing army. The colonists had a bunch of terrorist revolutionaries but no real standing army. Thus every able-bodied male took it to the redcoats guerrilla style.

The idea that every male should be ready to grab his gun and show up on the battlefield was, however, no longer feasible after the Civil War. Technology and tactics had made it an obsolete concept.

I wholeheartedly disagree. We have a standing army to fight wars. However, what happens when the standing army fails against a foreign invasion? What about if it disbands in whole or part or turns on the people due to tyranny? Who is the last line of defense then? What exactly is the "battlefield" at that point? The citizens have a God-given right to defend themselves, their family and neighbors, their country, and their constitution from the lawless with force and that is what the second amendment is about. It is NEVER obsolete.

Fast forward to the early 20th Century, Congress reorganized the militia into the National Guard, which is what we have today.

No, congress created the National Guard, but it does not replace the militia.

I was in the infantry, boy, did basic and AIT at Fort Benning, where do you serve, Rambo?

One does not have to serve to be able to recognize the clear differences in function between a select-fire and a semi-automatic weapon. Again, I thank you for your service, but you're being willfully ignorant here.

[PIMking]

I see you are one of those people (the conspiracy types).

Let's put this nonsense to bed right now. Every single one of those innocent kids was killed with an assault weapon. Sorry if that upsets your happy little make-believe world.



http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php

Maybe you need to rethink wherever it is that you get your information.

unlike you Im not trying to use a tragedy to press my political agenda. I believe these kids were killed by an idiot with a pistol. But unless they want to provide us with the actual assault rifle used (inside not his trunk) your basis is false and stupid

[HudsonGator]

You're correct up until this point. Britain had the standing army. The colonists had a I wholeheartedly disagree. We have a standing army to fight wars. However, what happens when the standing army fails against a foreign invasion? What about if it disbands in whole or part or turns on the people due to tyranny? Who is the last line of defense then? What exactly is the "battlefield" at that point? The citizens have a God-given right to defend themselves, their family and neighbors, their country, and their constitution from the lawless with force and that is what the second amendment is about. It is NEVER obsolete.

You left out what about if aliens land and want to take over????

We'll need every gun we can get our hands on when they start shooting those death rays at us...

No, congress created the National Guard, but it does not replace the militia.

Yeah, it did. Considering the fact that the "militia" exists in name only and hasn't been called out in well over a century pretty much means that it has been replaced.

One does not have to serve to be able to recognize the clear differences in function between a select-fire and a semi-automatic weapon. Again, I thank you for your service, but you're being willfully ignorant here.

Hardly, I have fired them all and I know what they can do. I simply do not see the need for you or anyone else in this country to own an AR-15 or its equivalent.

You disagree, I get it.

[gatorpa]

I assume you asking me to describe an assault weapon?

To me it is easy, any rifle or shotgun with a detachable magazine.
So for all you non-Mad Max wannabe survivalists out there, you can still have hunt, protect your home (although I would recommend a pistol in close quarters) and target shoot as much as you like.

Since many pistols have "detachable magazines" are they assault weapons too?
What's the difference barrel length?

[HudsonGator]

Since many pistols have "detachable magazines" are they assault weapons too?
What's the difference barrel length?

Read first, type second.

I defined it as a "rifle or shotgun," i.e. I specifically excluded pistols.

[mdgator05]

Did you know that violent crime in the USA has been trending down for quite some time. This in the face of more guns and more relaxed gun laws? No doubt there is a causal effect, right?

It has been tracking down for some time. This is a discussion comparing municipalities at one sliver of time not over time.

As far as more guns, it is possible that some of the "gun enthusiasts" are purchasing more guns, but there is evidence of decreasing gun ownership rates in the US.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2012/7/25/1343236603310/Percentage-of-households--001.jpg

So the percentage of houses owning a gun has been tracking down since at least the early 1990s. When did crime rates start to decline?

[helix139]

You left out what about if aliens land and want to take over????

We'll need every gun we can get our hands on when they start shooting those death rays at us...

Classic straw man.

Have you ever stopped to think that part of the reason we haven't really had any foreign invasions on US soil or outright tyranny by our leaders is that the population is well-armed? It's a deterrent that forcefully ensures our other named rights and ultimately provides for individual responsibility for the right to life.

Yeah, it did. Considering the fact that the "militia" exists in name only and hasn't been called out in well over a century pretty much means that it has been replaced.

The militia, by definition, cannot be replaced, whether or not it is officially "called out." It is in service, though, every time a man picks up his shotgun to repel a home invader, every time a person pulls their concealed Glock to stop a robbery, every time a woman stabs an attempted rapist. That is all part of the militia, at the individual level, but if/when the need arises, it will be up to the militia to repel a foreign or domestic enemy also because the military and the national guard can't or won't. We're fortunate the need has not arisen yet and I pray it doesn't for a long, long time.

Hardly, I have fired them all and I know what they can do. I simply do not see the need for you or anyone else in this country to own an AR-15 or its equivalent.

You disagree, I get it.

So willful ignorance, then?

[HudsonGator]

unlike you Im not trying to use a tragedy to press my political agenda. I believe these kids were killed by an idiot with a pistol. But unless they want to provide us with the actual assault rifle used (inside not his trunk) your basis is false and stupid

So the Connecticut State Police are part of the anti-gun conspiracy?

Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.

All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.

"It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.

Multiple Second Amendment and gun owner websites have attempted to cast doubts on whether the Bushmaster XM-15, a type of AR-15 rifle that is currently legal, was used in the Dec. 14 carnage done by Lanza.

Some have cited a Dec. 15 "Today" show video clip from the day after the shooting, in which NBC News Justice Department correspondent Pete Williams said that four handguns were recovered inside Sandy Hook Elementary School and that the Bushmaster rifle was found in the trunk of a car owned by Lanza's slain mother, Nancy Lanza.

"There's no doubt that the rifle was used solely to kill 26 people in that school," Vance said.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php

I see, since you are one of those people, it is impossible to have a rational discussion on this topic. At this point I think it would best if you put the tin foil back on your head and start scanning the horizon for black helicopters.

[gatorpa]

Read first, type second.

I defined it as a "rifle or shotgun," i.e. I specifically excluded pistols.

Read it first, but you dodged. I'll type slower....

I'll ask again, what is the difference between a pistol and a rifle/shotgun with a detachable magazine?

In your mind is it barrel length?

[HudsonGator]

Classic straw man.

You really like that word, don't you.

Have you ever stopped to think that part of the reason we haven't really had any foreign invasions on US soil...?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we have oceans on either side of us, that we span an entire continent, that our economy is the largest in the world and has been for over a century, or perhaps because we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy every living creature on the face of the planet several times over and we've had them for almost 70 years.

I am fairly certain that if Hitler could have somehow conquered Europe and acquired the naval and air assets to land and support an army in North America he wouldn't have been dissuaded by a bunch of rednecks with guns.

Have you ever stopped to think that part of the reason we haven't really had...outright tyranny by our leaders is that the population is well-armed? It's a deterrent that forcefully ensures our other named rights and ultimately provides for individual responsibility for the right to life.

We've argued this point ad nauseam. A bunch of guns in the hands of citizens doesn't ensure anything, other than an armed mob. We are a democracy. We are nation of laws. That is our strength as a nation, not what lies in your gunsafe.

The militia, by definition, cannot be replaced, whether or not it is officially "called out." It is in service, though, every time a man picks up his shotgun to repel a home invader, every time a person pulls their concealed Glock to stop a robbery, every time a woman stabs an attempted rapist. That is all part of the militia, at the individual level, but if/when the need arises, it will be up to the militia to repel a foreign or domestic enemy also because the military and the national guard can't or won't. We're fortunate the need has not arisen yet and I pray it doesn't for a long, long time.

I am sure that sounded nice to you when you wrote it, but it doesn't change the fact that the idea of the militia is, at this point, theoretical at best, and in reality is pure fantasy. We might as well be talking about whether the Templars still exist.

So willful ignorance, then?

Those in ignorant houses...

[GatorMid]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by HudsonGator
Read first, type second.

I defined it as a "rifle or shotgun," i.e. I specifically excluded pistols.

Read it first, but you dodged. I'll type slower....

I'll ask again, what is the difference between a pistol and a rifle/shotgun with a detachable magazine?

In your mind is it barrel length?



ARs look scarier to him...

[HudsonGator]

Read it first, but you dodged. I'll type slower....

I'll ask again, what is the difference between a pistol and a rifle/shotgun with a detachable magazine?

In your mind is it barrel length?

I didn't dodge it, it is a silly question not worthy of discussion.

I am fairly certain any knowledgeable person on the subject knows the difference.

Find something else to debate.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

So the percentage of houses owning a gun has been tracking down since at least the early 1990s.

Actually it has been stable after a decline a few decades ago.

[HudsonGator]

So the percentage of houses owning a gun has been tracking down since at least the early 1990s. When did crime rates start to decline?

That's what I am counting on. That gun ownership will become less and less fashionable and thus politically more difficult to blindly defend.

[helix139]

You really like that word, don't you.

I'm indifferent towards the phrase, but you sure to like throwing them out there.

Oh, I don't know, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we have oceans on either side of us, that we span an entire continent, that our economy is the largest in the world and has been for over a century, or perhaps because we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy every living creature on the face of the planet several times over and we've had them for almost 70 years.

I am fairly certain that if Hitler could have somehow conquered Europe and acquired the naval and air assets to land and support an army in North America he wouldn't have been dissuaded by a bunch of rednecks with guns.

The number of "rednecks with guns" even in most states would far outnumber any standing army. All of your factors contribute, certainly, but so does the armed population. Just like concealed and open carry are a deterrent to crime.

We've argued this point ad nauseum. A bunch of guns in the hands of citizens doesn't ensure anything, other than an armed mob. We are a democracy. We are nation of laws. That is our strength as a nation, not what lies in your gunsafe.

It ensured something for the colonists.

I am sure that sounded nice to you when you wrote it, but it doesn't change the fact that the idea of the militia is, at this point, theoretical at best, and in reality is pure fantasy. We might as well be talking about whether the Templars still exist.

I disagree. As I've said, the militia is put into action every day.

[Minister_of_Information]

The militia is eternal, so long as the people are sovereign.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/a-9fk9lhs0sq6baqmvnp7a.gif

and

http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/US-Gun-Households-courtesy-Gallup.png

and

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/n-k9vdg170sylv4thxvfsw.gif

and


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/999z-mpdxusifn-unxc5pq.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

and

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Key quote;

A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans' willingness to say they had guns is unclear. However, the new data suggest that attitudes may again be changing. At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades -- a finding that may be related to Americans' dampened support for gun-control laws. However, to ensure that this year's increase reflects a meaningful rebound in reported gun ownership, it will be important to see whether the uptick continues in future polling.

[HudsonGator]

The number of "rednecks with guns" even in most states would far outnumber any standing army. All of your factors contribute, certainly, but so does the armed population.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that argument, none.

Please direct my attention to one, just one document memorializing a discussion with Hitler, Napoleon III, Lord Palmerston, Wilhelm II, etc., deliberating on whether they should or shouldn't invade the U.S. given the number of armed citizens.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

It ensured something for the colonists.

So we should continue to make policy in the year 2013 because of something that may or may not have been true in the 1770's?

As I've said, the militia is put into action every day.

Whatever it is you think is put into action every day, it is not, by any educated person's definition, the "militia."

[MichiGator2002]

There is absolutely no evidence to support that argument, none.

Please direct my attention to one, just one document memorializing a discussion with Hitler, Napoleon III, Lord Palmerston, Wilhelm II, etc., deliberating on whether they should or shouldn't invade the U.S. given the number of armed citizens.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

So we should continue to make policy in the year 2013 because of something that may or may not have been true in the 1770's?

Whatever it is you think is put into action every day, it is not, by any educated person's definition, the "militia."

If you don't want an 18th century benchmark in the law, your remedy is a constitutional amendment. Or I guess the lawful but intentionally inconvenient process of amending the constitution just gets thrown on the "to be ignored" pile and it becomes to wonder... why even have law?

[HudsonGator]

If you don't want an 18th century benchmark in the law, your remedy is a constitutional amendment. Or I guess the lawful but intentionally inconvenient process of amending the constitution just gets thrown on the "to be ignored" pile and it becomes to wonder... why even have law?

What a bunch of nonsense.

I realize those kinds of platitudes sell well among you Tea Party types, but they don't pass for intelligent argument in my world.

[GatorMid]

^^^Fantasyland

[Minister_of_Information]

What a bunch of nonsense.

I realize those kinds of platitudes sell well among you Tea Party types, but they don't pass for intelligent argument in my world.

You mean that version of the world with a total gun ban.

[mdgator05]

Key quote;

That is nice. Of course, it is still down from the early 1990s. When was it that crime started to decline again?

And according to other measures, it has been declining since the 1970s. Truthfully, given Gallup's recent problem, I don't think I would accept any of their polling from the past few years (they have been consistently one of the worst pollsters in verifiable polling (election performance) and were the absolute worst this past year).

[mdgator05]

Actually it has been stable after a decline a few decades ago.

That is true. Of course, that decline happened to occur at exactly the same time the decline in crime started. Coincidence?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

That is true. Of course, that decline happened to occur at exactly the same time the decline in crime started. Coincidence?

Of course, the decline in crime was at the same time that gun laws became a lot more liberal. Coincidence? I think not

[mdgator05]

Of course, the decline in crime was at the same time that gun laws became a lot more liberal. Coincidence? I think not

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was making gun laws much more liberal? Was it the assault weapons bans or increased restrictions on who could own a gun that you consider "more liberal?"

[HudsonGator]

Of course, the decline in crime was at the same time that gun laws became a lot more liberal. Coincidence? I think not

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NSPbgLvmwpM/Te29MhjvxDI/AAAAAAAAAGs/dolRMf1u8SI/s1600/I+do+not+think+it+means+what+you+think+it+means.jp g

[PIMking]

So the Connecticut State Police are part of the anti-gun conspiracy?

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php

I see, since you are one of those people, it is impossible to have a rational discussion on this topic. At this point I think it would best if you put the tin foil back on your head and start scanning the horizon for black helicopters.

I'm not worried about black helicopters, you are the one putting words into my mouth trolling

[PIMking]

I'm not going to tell anyone that I have a gun. It is bad enough the government is trying to get kids to tell on their parents

[HudsonGator]

I'm not worried about black helicopters, you are the one putting words into my mouth trolling

On the contrary, I don't need to put any words in your mouth, you have done quite well showing the world you are one of these conspiracy people that tend to believe whatever they like regardless of the actual facts.

Here is what you said:

Except the "assault rifle" was in his car after the shooting right? So why do you think people continue to bring up conspiracy theories with this thing because even the government cant get the information out correctly. The reason is because with muddy waters they can push their political agenda across and restrict the freedoms of Americans even more for their safety.

"when a government doesn't fear the people its tyranny, when the government fears it's people it's freedom" Thomas Jefferson.

I have yet to see anything saying that an actual .223 was used except a few people that say that the wounds had to come from a .223 rifle, yet no .223 was found in the school, how could that be? it was in his car right? so he ran back outside put the rilfe (sic) in the trunk and then ran in and off'ed himself? lol liberal gun grabbing nonsense

And then you followed up with this little gem:

unlike you Im (sic) not trying to use a tragedy to press my political agenda. I believe these kids were killed by an idiot with a pistol. But unless they want to provide us with the actual assault rifle used (inside not his trunk) your basis is false and stupid

And here again are the actual facts, which, for whatever reason, you continue to deny:

Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.

All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.

"It's all these conspiracy theorists [he's talking to you] that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.

Multiple Second Amendment and gun owner websites have attempted to cast doubts on whether the Bushmaster XM-15, a type of AR-15 rifle that is currently legal, was used in the Dec. 14 carnage done by Lanza....

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php


If the tinfoil hat, black helicopter seeing shoe fits...

[wargunfan]

The Gallup organization reported that in 2011 gun ownership in the US was the highest in 18 years with a jump from 41% to 47% of adults owning guns in the last year. Democrats owning guns jumped from 30% to 40% of adults in the last two years. It would appear that Americans (especially Democrats) are not buying the idea that fewer guns equates to being safer.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

[PIMking]

On the contrary, I don't need to put any words in your mouth, you have done quite well showing the world you are one of these conspiracy people that tend to believe whatever they like regardless of the actual facts.

Here is what you said:

And then you followed up with this little gem:

And here again are the actual facts, which, for whatever reason, you continue to deny:

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php

If the tinfoil hat, black helicopter seeing shoe fits...

You're the first to go on the ignore list. Not gonna fall into your trap

[wargunfan]

Florida gun violence hits a record low. Concealed carry permits most in the nation. There may be no correlation between the two but the odds for the good guys keep getting better.
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/florida-firearm-violence-hits-record-low-concealed-gun-permits-up

[Minister_of_Information]

Hmmm, fewer households report firearms ownership immediately after the AWB and subsequent political annihilation of the democratic Congress. So evidently 'Mericans will end a 50 year run of Congressional power in response to a gratuitous gun snatch, but they won't bother to actually buy the damn things (and be honest about it...). Of course, and I hate to disappoint our liberal friends, correlation is not causation even when you like the resulting narrative.

[HudsonGator]

You're the first to go on the ignore list. Not gonna fall into your trap

I find it interesting that you refuse to address the fact that you have repeatedly said it was a pistol and not an assault weapon that was used in the Newtown massacre, yet the Connecticut State Police have unequivocally stated that it was indeed an assault weapon.

So that begs the question, are the Connecticut State Police part of some vast, anti-gun conspiracy?

Oh well, if you have indeed "filtered" me, I should just thank you, I feel as though my IQ is decreased every time we have our little back and forths.

[gatorpa]

I didn't dodge it, it is a silly question not worthy of discussion.

I am fairly certain any knowledgeable person on the subject knows the difference.

Find something else to debate.

So you in your finite wisdow, sets the terms of what is worthy to debate and how to debate.

All I've seen you do is make arbitrary calims, not based in logic insult those who question and then run away.

Just a bunch of hot air you are.

[wargunfan]

The ignore feature is you friend.

[HudsonGator]

So you in your finite wisdow, sets the terms of what is worthy to debate and how to debate.

All I've seen you do is make arbitrary calims, not based in logic insult those who question and then run away.

Just a bunch of hot air you are.

Do you honestly not know the difference between a pistol, otherwise known as a handgun (hint, hint), and a rifle?

[OB1]

Thank you, I feel as though my IQ is decreased every time we have our little back and forths.

Honestly, I can't see it decreasing too much, probably just feels that way!

Unfortunately, our country has become more dangerous to its people during my life. It is foolish to think the government can and will protect you from those with bad intentions or the desire to forcibly part you and belongings like you do. One day you may end up the victim of a senseless criminal act and will wish you could have defended yourself or your family, but instead you decided it was better to disarm everyone. Too bad the criminals don't think that way!

You have the ability to give up your right to bear arms, but you will find many more that will defend that right and no give it up as easy as you believe.

You should think about immigrating to France, you will find many like minded people there. Or perhaps one of the communist nations, as you really don't like people having any rights, and like being part of a nation of laws!

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

[HudsonGator]

Honestly, I can't see it decreasing too much, probably just feels that way!

Unfortunately, our country has become more dangerous to its people during my life. It is foolish to think the government can and will protect you from those with bad intentions or the desire to forcibly part you and belongings like you do. One day you may end up the victim of a senseless criminal act and will wish you could have defended yourself or your family, but instead you decided it was better to disarm everyone. Too bad the criminals don't think that way!

You have the ability to give up your right to bear arms, but you will find many more that will defend that right and no give it up as easy as you believe.

You should think about immigrating to France, you will find many like minded people there. Or perhaps one of the communist nations, as you really don't like people having any rights, and like being part of a nation of laws!

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

And perhaps you should move to Yemen, there are lots of gun freaks in Yemen.

See how easy that is, not much of an argument of course, but easy nonetheless.

[gatorpa]

Do you honestly not know the difference between a pistol, otherwise known as a handgun (hint, hint), and a rifle?

Since the whole argument about "assault weapons" is due to the vast numbers that they can kill so quickly and easily, I fail to see the difference (since we are talking about easy murders) between a AR-15 or a Glock with a large clip(detachable magazine).

You made the distinction about "detachable magazine" making a weapon an "assault weapon", you have been called on that point by more than one and now you play stupid, perhaps you don't realize that a pistol with a large clip can kill large amounts quickly. So I guess really to you it's not about the number that can be killed, but the size of the barrel....perhaps there is some unconscious envy there? :yes:

[Minister_of_Information]

Vast numbers of people are not killed by assault weapons. Case closed.

[HudsonGator]

Since the whole argument about "assault weapons" is due to the vast numbers that they can kill so quickly and easily, I fail to see the difference (since we are talking about easy murders) between a AR-15 or a Glock with a large clip(detachable magazine).

You made the distinction about "detachable magazine" making a weapon an "assault weapon", you have been called on that point by more than one and now you play stupid, perhaps you don't realize that a pistol with a large clip can kill large amounts quickly. So I guess really to you it's not about the number that can be killed, but the size of the barrel....perhaps there is some unconscious envy there? :yes:

What a sad and pathetic little man you must be, now you reduce the argument to the gutter.

Don't quit your day job, Sigmund.

[Minister_of_Information]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, especially when the gander is a hypocrite.

[helix139]

There is absolutely no evidence to support that argument, none.

Please direct my attention to one, just one document memorializing a discussion with Hitler, Napoleon III, Lord Palmerston, Wilhelm II, etc., deliberating on whether they should or shouldn't invade the U.S. given the number of armed citizens.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

How's this for you:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob0109.html


So we should continue to make policy in the year 2013 because of something that may or may not have been true in the 1770's?

May or may not be true? So did we or did we not win the war with a bunch of armed citizens against a standing army?

And ignoring that, why not? It's just as true today as it was back in the 1770s. The Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghan resistance sure managed to give our super advanced military a hell of a lot of trouble and they are only a fraction of the size of the armed US population. Not only that, but that 1770's policy seems to work well for the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Whatever it is you think is put into action every day, it is not, by any educated person's definition, the "militia."

Would you regard the supreme court as uneducated? The right to self defense as articulated in Heller stems from the militia.

[Minister_of_Information]

Actually helix, if you'll forgive the friendly fire, the right to self defense in Heller is a supraordinate right that is not constrained by a militia purpose, though the militia purpose is certainly corollary. This does seem to contradict earlier jurisprudence, though correctly so in my view.

[wygator]

Point of information:

The Ruger SR9 9mm compact semi-automatic pistol has a 17 round magazine.

[helix139]

Actually helix, if you'll forgive the friendly fire, the right to self defense in Heller is a supraordinate right that is not constrained by a militia purpose, though it is certainly corollary. This does seem to contradict earlier jurisprudence, though correctly so in my view.

I'd agree, but either way, one really can't exist without the other, and really each must exist as a result of the other, as either the militia is derived as a corporate extension of the right to self defense (being itself derived from the right to life) or the right to self defense is derived from the militia broken down to the individual level as a connection between the corporate militia and the right to life.

But you are indeed correct re: Heller.

[wargunfan]

The irony is that those who want to turn America into a "gun free zone" would consign the populace to be victims of those who scoff at the law. My suspicion is that, like the typical liberal elitist, they would be well armed; believing that the law only applies to the masses. Fortunately the bleating of these lovers of tyranny is falling on deaf ears.

[Minister_of_Information]

The bottom line is that the left has been hoping for a pretext to outlaw paramilitary weapons because they don't believe they should be in civilian hands, and now they feel they have it. In other words they reject the militia function altogether, and believe that only the government should have recourse to force in extemis. I don't believe, in most cases anyway, that this originates out of a truly totalitarian or tyrannical impulse, but out of a sincere if misguided hope in a better world that is totally free of violence. But this agenda has the fatal effect of paving the way for future tyranny, and man being what man is it cannot be doubted that sooner or later it will arise when the time is ripe. That is why I think it is our duty to pass down the birthright of liberty intact into the hands of the next generation. That is all we can do.

[wargunfan]

The bottom line is that the left has been hoping for a pretext to outlaw paramilitary weapons because they don't believe they should be in civilian hands, and now they feel they have it. In other words they reject the militia function altogether, and believe that only the government should have recourse to force in extemis. I don't believe, in most cases anyway, that this originates out of a truly totalitarian or tyrannical impulse, but out of a sincere if misguided hope in a better world that is totally free of violence. But this agenda has the fatal effect of paving the way for future tyranny, and man being what man is it cannot be doubted that sooner or later it will arise when the time is ripe. That is why I think it is our duty to pass down the birthright of liberty intact into the hands of the next generation. That is all we can do.

^^^This. It is our duty, as inheritors of freedom bought with the blood of patriots, to guard jealously the right of the people to bear arms. In this generation our battle may only be against the well meaning forfeiture of liberty. Our children my need these arms to maintain their freedom. We must pass on what we have been given at high cost.

[HudsonGator]

How's this for you:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob0109.html


That is not what I asked for, what you have provided is a blog by someone named Massad Ayoob on a website called backwoods.com in which he provides an unsourced claim than an unnamed Japanese officer allegedly stated while aboard the USS Constellation in 1960 that armed citizens were the reason the Japanese didn't invade.

One more time, provide one historical document memorializing a discussion with Hitler, Napoleon III, Lord Palmerston, Wilhelm II, etc., deliberating on whether they should or shouldn't invade the U.S. given the number of armed citizens.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

Oh yes, and one more thing, as was alluded to in the blog, the USS Constellation wasn't commissioned until 1961 and wasn't transferred to the Pacific until 1962, perhaps a little research is in order if these fairytales are to be taken seriously.

May or may not be true? So did we or did we not win the war with a bunch of armed citizens against a standing army?

And ignoring that, why not? It's just as true today as it was back in the 1770s. The Vietnamese, Iraqi, and Afghan resistance sure managed to give our super advanced military a hell of a lot of trouble and they are only a fraction of the size of the armed US population. Not only that, but that 1770's policy seems to work well for the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

This argument again I see. Once again, the premise of this argument is that somehow guns are the sole guarantee of liberty and democracy. I reject the premise, as there are lots of perfectly functioning democracies throughout the world that restrict the right to own guns (e.g. Australia, the UK, France, Germany, Israel, etc.)

Would you regard the supreme court as uneducated? The right to self defense as articulated in Heller stems from the militia.

I am not really sure what Scalia's tortured interpretation of the Second Amendment in Heller has to do with the fact that the Militia as it was understood in 1791 simply does not exist, and hasn't existed since the Civil War.

[Minister_of_Information]

This argument again I see. Once again, the premise of this argument is that somehow guns are the sole guarantee of liberty and democracy. I reject the premise, as there are lots of perfectly functioning democracies throughout the world that restrict the right to own guns (e.g. Australia, the UK, France, Germany, Israel, etc.)

I take it that the better angels of human nature are the only guarantees you need.

Hope is not a plan.

[wargunfan]

I hear the faint sound of bleating but because of the Ignore feature I cant quite make it out. Oh well.

[helix139]

That is not what I asked for, what you have provided is a blog by someone named Massad Ayoob on a website called backwoods.com in which he provides an unsourced claim than an unnamed Japanese officer allegedly stated while aboard the USS Constellation in 1960 that armed citizens were the reason the Japanese didn't invade.

One more time, provide one historical document memorializing a discussion with Hitler, Napoleon III, Lord Palmerston, Wilhelm II, etc., deliberating on whether they should or shouldn't invade the U.S. given the number of armed citizens.

I'll be waiting with bated breath.

Oh yes, and one more thing, the USS Constellation wasn't commissioned until 1961 and wasn't transferred to the Pacific until 1962, perhaps Mr. Ayoob should do a little research for his fairytales if he wants people to believe them.

Well you're not going to find many records of discussions regarding invading the US at all by any of those leaders, much less the reasons why they chose not to, and that is not exclusive to firearms, but undoubtedly you'll use that to claim victory anyways.

It's common sense, though, and Ayoob lays out the case really well, including addressing your criticism of the Japanese account being referred to. Why would someone invade a large country with an armed population when they can invade a smaller country with a significantly less armed population? Part of a successful invasion is being able to control or eliminate the population. If much of the population is armed and outnumbers your invading army significantly, you're going to have a harder time finding success. There is nothing illogical about that and any competent military strategist would be stupid to ignore it.

This argument again I see. Once again, the premise of this argument is that somehow guns are the sole guarantee of liberty and democracy. I reject the premise, as there are lots of perfectly functioning democracies throughout the world that restrict the right to own guns (e.g. Australia, the UK, France, Germany, Israel, etc.)

Guns aren't the sole guarantee but they are the last guarantee and the enforcer of any other guarantees.

The one thing tyrannical rule almost always has in common is a disarmed population. How did that restricting of gun rights in 1938 work out for Germany?

I am not really sure what Scalia's tortured interpretation of the Second Amendment in Heller has to do with the fact that the Militia as it was understood in 1791 simply does not exist, and hasn't existed since the Civil War.

Scalia may have written the opinion, but 4 concurred without adding anything further.

Re: the militia as it was understood in 1791, do you agree with this premise (from Heller)?

The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved?

If not, where do you disagree and how? If so, then the question becomes whether or not there are still males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. Since there are, the militia still exists exactly as it did in 1791. Period. It just hasn't been depended upon to act as it was back then, but it does not have to be called upon and used with regularity to exist.

[HudsonGator]

Well you're not going to find many records of discussions regarding invading the US at all by any of those leaders, much less the reasons why they chose not to, and that is not exclusive to firearms, but undoubtedly you'll use that to claim victory anyways.

It's common sense, though, and Ayoob lays out the case really well, including addressing your criticism of the Japanese account being referred to. Why would someone invade a large country with an armed population when they can invade a smaller country with a significantly less armed population? Part of a successful invasion is being able to control or eliminate the population. If much of the population is armed and outnumbers your invading army significantly, you're going to have a harder time finding success. There is nothing illogical about that and any competent military strategist would be stupid to ignore it.

Again, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that supports the argument that the number of armed civilians was ever considered by any person of authority in another Country when the issue of war with the United States was discussed. Geography has, more than anything else, kept our shores safe and since 1945 nuclear weapons have been the only deterrent that matters, making the idea of armed civilians acting as a deterrent even humorous in comparison.

Guns aren't the sole guarantee but they are the last guarantee and the enforcer of any other guarantees.

The one thing tyrannical rule almost always has in common is a disarmed population. How did that restricting of gun rights in 1938 work out for Germany?

It was irrelevant. Hitler had been in power for five years at that point. It wasn't as if there was any armed resistance to speak of to Hitler at that point.

There simply is no evidence that armed civilians are a guarantee of freedom or democracy, as there are numerous examples of countries with both who do not have an armed populace.

Scalia may have written the opinion, but 4 concurred without adding anything further.

Re: the militia as it was understood in 1791, do you agree with this premise (from Heller)?

No, I think Scalia used the militia argument as an excuse to help him arrive at his desired result.

As I have said again and again, the militia as it was understood in 1791 hasn't existed since the Civil War. Technology and tactics have made it obsolete as a means to fight and win wars.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

When was it that crime started to decline again?


When gun laws were changed. In the late 80s and early 90s.

That MUST be the reason.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NSPbgLvmwpM/Te29MhjvxDI/AAAAAAAAAGs/dolRMf1u8SI/s1600/I+do+not+think+it+means+what+you+think+it+means.jp g

I use the correct definition of liberal. Your knowledge of English is on par with your knowledge of weapons and weapon laws.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Point of information:

The Ruger SR9 9mm compact semi-automatic pistol has a 17 round magazine.

My Sig Sauer SP 2022 .40 handgun has 12 round magazine.

[Minister_of_Information]

As I have said again and again, the militia as it was understood in 1791 hasn't existed since the Civil War. Technology and tactics have made it obsolete as a means to fight and win wars.

Tell that to the Taliban.

[Lawdog88]

Tell that to the Taliban.


VC also disagree.

[DanseRusse]

Hudson doesn't even know what kind of government we have. We area democratic republic not a democracy. A true democracy wouldn't work. And to be fair, this one as of late is just getting by.

[HudsonGator]

Hudson doesn't even know what kind of government we have. We area democratic republic not a democracy. A true democracy wouldn't work. And to be fair, this one as of late is just getting by.

From Webster's:

Democracy:

1.a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority; b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2. a political unit that has a democratic government
3. capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4. the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5. the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

It would seem we qualify, but thanks for your input, such as it was.

[helix139]

Again, there is simply no evidence whatsoever that supports the argument that the number of armed civilians was ever considered by any person of authority in another Country when the issue of war with the United States was discussed. Geography has, more than anything else, kept our shores safe and since 1945 nuclear weapons have been the only deterrent that matters, making the idea of armed civilians acting as a deterrent even humorous in comparison.

I provided you with an account of a Japanese military leader discussing that. You just didn't like it and as I predicted, claimed victory. That isn't the only account that is out there re: the Japanese. Just google it. And yes, nukes are a deterrent and probably the strongest one, and I'm not arguing they aren't, or that there aren't other deterrents. I'm just arguing that it is logical military strategy to figure out how you are going to either eliminate or control the population of a country that you're going to invade. If the population is armed and hostile, you're going to have a significantly harder time as was shown in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. It is just another layer of deterrence and it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.

It was irrelevant. Hitler had been in power for five years at that point. It wasn't as if there was any armed resistance to speak of to Hitler at that point.

I'm sure those millions of Jews and other undesireables that were disarmed and then rounded up and exterminated thought it was irrelevant.

There simply is no evidence that armed civilians are a guarantee of freedom or democracy, as there are numerous examples of countries with both who do not have an armed populace.

Again, you're arguing against a point that I never made. Arms are not a guarantee of freedom, but a major deterrent to tyranny. Those countries without an armed populace are free only as long as their leaders allow them freedom. The minute their leaders decide to abuse their power, that freedom is gone and those country's citizens will have no recourse. If history has shown anything, it's not a matter of if that will happen, but when.

No, I think Scalia used the militia argument as an excuse to help him arrive at his desired result.

As was said by MOI, Scalia actually argued the right to self defense is not dependent upon the militia clause but in fact that the militia stems from the self-evident right to self defense that was implicitly recognized but not granted by the 2A, so this statement makes no sense logically.

As I have said again and again, the militia as it was understood in 1791 hasn't existed since the Civil War. Technology and tactics have made it obsolete as a means to fight and win wars.

Repeating a point over and over doesn't make it true. Especially when you have been shown reasons why it is false and you fail to address them. Do you or do you not agree that the the framers' definition and history given for the Militia as layed out in Heller is correct? If so, and acknowledging that there are still males (and equal protection would suggest females now, too) physically capable of acting in common defense, then by definition the militia has to exist exactly as it was understood in 1791. Always has and always will as long as there are people capable of acting in common defense.

Your latter point about the validity of using the militia to fight and win wars is also invalid and has been logically refuted with evidence from both recent and more distant history. Should the militia actually have to act in common defense, it wouldn't be a traditional war on a battlefield. It would be in attempting to repel an occupation in much the same guerrilla fashion used by the Taliban, Iraqi resistance, VC, etc. The difference being that we'd have better and more arms, more people, and many of our people would have much better training being ex-military, ex-law enforcement, etc.

From a pure numbers perspective, as of 2010 there were just shy of 3 million active and reserve members of the military. Contrast that with over 70 million males alone between the ages of 18 and 49 in the same year. If the military turned on its own country and we assumed nobody deserted or refused to carry out orders and that only half of the 70 million males and none of the 70 million females of the same age took up arms in common defense, the US military would still be outnumbered by over 10:1. I don't care what kind of technology you have, those are not good numbers.

[DanseRusse]

From Webster's:

It would seem we qualify, but thanks for your input, such as it was.

Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

And how do the people hold the supreme power in the country? I am leaning toward a federal republic.

[Minister_of_Information]

Good post helix. Once again I note the irony that the constituency that felt a repetition of the defeat in Vietnam was inevitable in Iraq openly scoff at the prospects for an insurgency among a much larger, better trained and equipped populace in the US.

In my view, 1-3% active resistance by the armed populace would be fatal to the Federal government.

[wygator]

I'll trust Benjamin Franklin:

On the close of the Constitutional Convention he was asked,

"What have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

His reply:

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

[wygator]

I'll trust Benjamin Franklin:

On the close of the Constitutional Convention he was asked,

"What have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

His reply:

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

What did he mean by "if you can keep it"?

Franklin also said:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

[HudsonGator]

I provided you with an account of a Japanese military leader discussing that. You just didn't like it and as I predicted, claimed victory. That isn't the only account that is out there re: the Japanese. Just google it. And yes, nukes are a deterrent and probably the strongest one, and I'm not arguing they aren't, or that there aren't other deterrents. I'm just arguing that it is logical military strategy to figure out how you are going to either eliminate or control the population of a country that you're going to invade. If the population is armed and hostile, you're going to have a significantly harder time as was shown in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. It is just another layer of deterrence and it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.

No, you did not provide me with an account of a "Japanese leader," what you provided was an unsourced claim that an unnamed Japanese officer allegedly stated while aboard the USS Constellation in 1960 that armed citizens were the reason the Japanese didn't invade, notwithstanding the fact that the USS Constellation wasn't commissioned until 1961 and wasn't transferred to the Pacific until 1962.

I can post a blog on the internet and say that I spoke with a Japanese officer in 1965 who told me that they couldn't wait until they invaded America so that they could chop the heads off of every civilian with a gun and it would carry about as much weight as Mr. Ayoob's blog.

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of military science knows that the nuclear deterrent and geography are the only real deterrents to an invasion of the Nation.

First, no nation on Earth currently possesses the naval and air assets required to land and support an invasion of the U.S. Second, even if in the future some country, China for instance, were to develop its navy and air force to the point that it would actually attempt an invasion, America’s nuclear arsenal would reduce their country to ashes.

The thought of an armed populace is so far down the list of considerations given the foregoing it is comical.

I'm sure those millions of Jews and other undesireables that were disarmed and then rounded up and exterminated thought it was irrelevant..


The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 and the Poles in 1944 were armed and they were crushed by the military force of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, which again proves my point, an armed rebellion against a modern mechanized army is generally pointless.

History lesson time: The Viet Cong were defeated in South Vietnam, it essentially ceased to exist as a major military force after the Tet offensive in 1968. The North Vietnamese Army, which was well equipped by the Soviets ultimately prevailed after the U.S. had withdrawn.

In Afganistan the Soviets were winning, and it was only after the U.S. began to supply the mujahedin with modern weapons, including surface to air missiles, that the war essentially became a stalemate. Further, given the unique conditions in the Country, it is difficult to say that there are many lessons from Afganistan that can be applied elsewhere.

Bottom-line, almost all successful armed insurgencies require an outside sponsor.

Again, you're arguing against a point that I never made. Arms are not a guarantee of freedom, but a major deterrent to tyranny. Those countries without an armed populace are free only as long as their leaders allow them freedom. The minute their leaders decide to abuse their power, that freedom is gone and those country's citizens will have no recourse. If history has shown anything, it's not a matter of if that will happen, but when.

Sorry, but history teaches us no such thing. How many dictators has England had in the last 200 years? What about Israel, how many dictators have they had since 1949?

Again, there is no evidence of a causal relationship between an armed populace and freedom.

Simply pointing to Nazi Germany does not establish a cause and effect relationship.

As was said by MOI, Scalia actually argued the right to self defense is not dependent upon the militia clause but in fact that the militia stems from the self-evident right to self defense that was implicitly recognized but not granted by the 2A, so this statement makes no sense logically.

I have stated my views on this subject dozens of times on this board already.

My views on the Second Amendment are the same as those expressed by Judge Posner (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books/defense-looseness#). He is far more eloquent than I am in explaining the weakness of Scalia's argument. I would encourage you to read it.

Repeating a point over and over doesn't make it true.

There is some irony here, I hope you can see that.

Do you or do you not agree that the the framers' definition and history given for the Militia as layed out in Heller is correct? If so, and acknowledging that there are still males (and equal protection would suggest females now, too) physically capable of acting in common defense, then by definition the militia has to exist exactly as it was understood in 1791. Always has and always will as long as there are people capable of acting in common defense.

No, I don't agree. The militia is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. It doesn't exist, and hasn't existed in any sense beyond the theoretical since the Civil War.

Your latter point about the validity of using the militia to fight and win wars is also invalid and has been logically refuted with evidence from both recent and more distant history. Should the militia actually have to act in common defense, it wouldn't be a traditional war on a battlefield. It would be in attempting to repel an occupation in much the same guerrilla fashion used by the Taliban, Iraqi resistance, VC, etc. The difference being that we'd have better and more arms, more people, and many of our people would have much better training being ex-military, ex-law enforcement, etc.

See above.

From a pure numbers perspective, as of 2010 there were just shy of 3 million active and reserve members of the military. Contrast that with over 70 million males alone between the ages of 18 and 49 in the same year. If the military turned on its own country and we assumed nobody deserted or refused to carry out orders and that only half of the 70 million males and none of the 70 million females of the same age took up arms in common defense, the US military would still be outnumbered by over 10:1. I don't care what kind of technology you have, those are not good numbers.

Yeah, and just how many of those people would actually put their lives and their property at risk?

Considering the very low percentage of Americans whose patriotism (or lack thereof) leads them to serve their Country these days, the numbers for your armed insurrection are going to be low. And those that do will be an untrained mob, no match for a modern trained and well equipped military.

[HudsonGator]

Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

And how do the people hold the supreme power in the country? I am leaning toward a federal republic.

You said the following:

We area (sic) democratic republic not a democracy. A true democracy wouldn't work. And to be fair, this one as of late is just getting by.

You clearly said we do not live in a democracy. I showed unequivocally that our government does in fact fit squarely within the definition of a democracy.

I am not sure really why you are still posting at this point.

[HudsonGator]

helix139:

On a personal note, I must say I continue to enjoy our discussion on this subject. You seem to have a somewhat unique ability on this board to express your views intelligently and without mindless platitudes.

[DanseRusse]

helix139:

On a personal note, I must say I continue to enjoy our discussion on this subject. You seem to have a somewhat unique ability on this board to express your views intelligently and without mindless platitudes.

And the definition is that the people hold supreme power. We do not. This we are not a democracy. I don't understand why you are still posting.

[DarthG8Rv2]

Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto quoted as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."


The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants.



http://i.imgur.com/kug0idX.jpg

[HudsonGator]

Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto quoted as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Actually that's one of those internet driven urban myths. There is no historical record of him ever saying anything of the sort.

[HudsonGator]

And the definition is that the people hold supreme power. We do not. This we are not a democracy. I don't understand why you are still posting.

Reading comprehension is a problem I see.

One more time, I will type slowly:

Webster's definition of "democracy:"

a) government by the people; especially: rule of the majority; b) a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Whoever taught you to read should be ashamed of themselves.

[MichiGator2002]

What a bunch of nonsense.

I realize those kinds of platitudes sell well among you Tea Party types, but they don't pass for intelligent argument in my world.

Speaks embarrassingly of whatever world that might be. It isn't quantum physics -- dislike law, follow enclosed procedure to revise law. That is too complicated, apparently. I shudder to see what trouble this could make for tech support people if those in "your world" applied this mindset to their computers or their cars...

Computer malfunction. Follow enclosed troubleshooting guide, or wave chicken bones over it?

Car malfunction. Consult owner's manual and do as directed, or beat with a stick?

Sticks and chicken bones, that is what anticonstitutionalists bring to con law discussions.

[HudsonGator]

Speaks embarrassingly of whatever world that might be. It isn't quantum physics -- dislike law, follow enclosed procedure to revise law. That is too complicated, apparently. I shudder to see what trouble this could make for tech support people if those in "your world" applied this mindset to their computers or their cars...

Computer malfunction. Follow enclosed troubleshooting guide, or wave chicken bones over it?

Car malfunction. Consult owner's manual and do as directed, or beat with a stick?

Sticks and chicken bones, that is what anticonstitutionalists bring to con law discussions.




That's true only if one were to accept the premise that your interpretation of the Second Amendment is definitive and final.

As I have said now many times, I do not accept your definition (nor do several members of the current Supreme Court).

Since Scalia has foolishly decided to Constitutionalize yet another issue (like the so called “right” to abortion), this issue now must be fought both in the Courts and in Congress.

[MichiGator2002]

That's true only if one were to accept the premise that your interpretation of the Second Amendment is definitive and final.

As I have said now many times, I do not accept your definition (nor do several members of the current Supreme Court).

Since Scalia has foolishly decided to Constitutionalize yet another issue (like the so called “right” to abortion), this issue now must be fought both in the Courts and in Congress.

Actually, what I said was solely about your apparent contempt for the amendment process, and had nothing to do with the 2nd.

Scalia didn't constitutionalize abortion; that is what "Roe" did, if you aren't clear on what it means to "constitutionalize" a legal issue. I don't really see how the right to firearms, being a textual one, is one to which that term can be applied. Only nontextual rights are "constitutionalized", usually by means of the 14th amendment.

[Minister_of_Information]

History lesson time: The Viet Cong were defeated in South Vietnam, it essentially ceased to exist as a major military force after the Tet offensive in 1968. The North Vietnamese Army, which was well equipped by the Soviets ultimately prevailed after the U.S. had withdrawn.

In Afganistan the Soviets were winning, and it was only after the U.S. began to supply the mujahedin with modern weapons, including surface to air missiles, that the war essentially became a stalemate. Further, given the unique conditions in the Country, it is difficult to say that there are many lessons from Afganistan that can be applied elsewhere.

Bottom-line, almost all successful armed insurgencies require an outside sponsor.

It's gratifying that you've finally chosen to address the particulars of the case.

It is true that the VC were destroyed as a fighting force with an essentially South Vietnamese character during Tet. Yet it is false to say that they were defeated. Their sacrifice led directly to political victory, as was intended by Giap. So the point that an insurgent force cannot stand toe to toe with a mechanized modern army is both tautological and irrelevant. An insurgency doesn't even need to win a single battle to win a war. That is the lesson of Vietnam.

[HudsonGator]

Actually, what I said was solely about your apparent contempt for the amendment process, and had nothing to do with the 2nd.

Scalia didn't constitutionalize abortion; that is what "Roe" did, if you aren't clear on what it means to "constitutionalize" a legal issue. I don't really see how the right to firearms, being a textual one, is one to which that term can be applied. Only nontextual rights are "constitutionalized", usually by means of the 14th amendment.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, Scalia Constitutionalized gun ownership just like Blackmun Constitutionalized a "right" to an abortion, thus making it very difficult to deal with through the democratic process and as a result he made every supreme court nomination a function of one's views on Roe (a tragic mistake, in my opinion). I fear Heller will now be the second litmus test for Supreme Court nominations.

Regardless, we disagree on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, I think that is abundantly clear at this point.

[Lawdog88]

It's gratifying that you've finally chosen to address the particulars of the case.

It is true that the VC were destroyed as a fighting force with an essentially South Vietnamese character during Tet. Yet it is false to say that they were defeated. Their sacrifice led directly to political victory, as was intended by Giap. So the point that an insurgent force cannot stand toe to toe with a mechanized modern army is both tautological and irrelevant. An insurgency doesn't even need to win a single battle to win a war. That is the lesson of Vietnam.


That is one of the most powerfully articulated statements seen lately in these parts.

[Minister_of_Information]

That is one of the most powerfully articulated statements seen lately in these parts.

YVW, I wonder if it will be ignored. ;)

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Vast numbers of people are not killed by assault weapons. Case closed.

to wit;

Assault Weapons and Mass Shootings

In "Appendix A" Roth et. al found, "contrary to our expectations, only 2 -- 3.8 percent - of the 52 mass murders we gleaned from the Nexis search [from Jan. 1992 through May 1996] unambiguously involved assault weapons. This is about the same percentage as for other murders... media accounts lend some tenuous support to the notion that assault weapons are more deadly than other weapons in mass murder events, as measured by victims per incident. However in Footnote 61 Roth states: "If, for instance, the substituted long guns were .22 caliber, rimfire (i.e., low velocity) rifles (and in addition did not accept large-capacity magazines), then a substitution effect [as a result of the assault weapons ban] would be less likely to have demonstrably negative consequences. If, on the other hand, offenders substituted shotguns for assault weapons, there could be negative consequences for gun violence mortality. "

Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997) after examining the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1976 to 1992, reports "the rate of killings with four or more victims was higher in 1976-1982, prior to the popularity of assault weapons, than in 1983-1992. Regardless of the numerical cutoff defining mass shootings, there was no increase in such incidents associated with the increased popularity of assault weapons after 1984".

Dr. Kleck also states that "Oddly enough, mass killings are actually less likely to involve the use of guns of any kind than homicides involving small numbers of victims. For all murders and non negligent manslaughters covered in Supplementary Homicide Reports (about 90% of all U.S. killings) for the period 1976 to 1992, only 48.3% of victims killed in incidents with four or more victims were killed with guns, compared to 62.3% of those killed in incidents with three or fewer victims. This is mainly due to the large share of mass killings committed with arson, which is rarely involved in ordinary homicides."

Incidentally, there are an estimated 4 million assault rifles in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock. (Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security, Assault Rifle Fact Sheet #2, 1989)

[gatorchris]

The back and forth is entertaining but pointless. You really only have 2 options, to continue to allow the populace to keep pace with the existing gun market (assault weapons, HC magazines, etc), or remove all the guns that exist in that market to level the playing field. Banning future sales of assault weapons will have no effect in making anything safer. Not seeing a mass killing with an assault weapon during an assault weapon ban is anectdotal, not emperical. There just isnt enough of a sample size to show an impact.

I find it odd that the anti-gun crowd is ignoring the simple fact that the only thing that stops a mass shooting is either running out of targets or running into someone with another gun. That cant be stated enough.

Lanza stopped shooting between 9:46 am and 9:49 am, after firing 50 to 100 rounds.[54] He reloaded frequently during the shooting, sometimes firing only fifteen rounds from a thirty-round magazine.[25] He shot all of his victims multiple times, and at least one victim, six-year-old Noah Pozner, 11 times.[55][56] Most of the shooting took place in two first-grade classrooms near the entrance of the school, where he killed fourteen in one room and six in the other.[57] The student victims were eight boys and twelve girls, between six and seven years of age,[58] and the six adults were all women who worked at the school. Bullets were also found in at least three cars parked outside the school.[25] After realizing that he had been spotted by a pair of police officers who had entered the building, Lanza fled from their sight and killed himself with a gunshot to the head with a handgun

I realize that it was cops he saw and not an armed "right-winger". It doesnt change the point that Lanza wasnt stopping because of anything but another gun.

If we turn back the clock to December 13th, 2012 and enact the assault weapon ban as written that day, it doesnt stop what happened in Newtown. Lanza didnt buy an assault weapon, he stole one from a legal owner (AW ban wouldnt change this fact). He used the stolen weapon and ammo to shoot kids (AW ban wouldnt change this fact). The penalties of violating an AW ban wouldnt scare someone that is intent on killing himself, so again, an AW ban doesnt change anything that happens that day.

The only way to eliminate AW's as a tool for mass shootings is to remove them from the market entirely. Legal owners and illegal owners (good luck, the FBI has shown a stellar record so far of gun record keeping). And you can remove the cloak of indignation when trying to paint gun owners as callous and uncaring about the kids at Newtown when ignoring the fact that gun homicides are almost all commited with handguns (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8). If this was about saving lives, you would ban handguns as well. The AW ban is political theater, pure and simple.

[Lawdog88]

^^^ Hammers, hands, feet, pushing, and other weapons (not described), are responsible for more homicides that homicide by rifle.

Looks like a ban for those should be forthcoming.

[MichiGator2002]

Perhaps I should have been more clear, Scalia Constitutionalized gun ownership just like Blackmun Constitutionalized a "right" to an abortion, thus making it very difficult to deal with through the democratic process and as a result he made every supreme court nomination a function of one's views on Roe (a tragic mistake, in my opinion). I fear Heller will now be the second litmus test for Supreme Court nominations.

Regardless, we disagree on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, I think that is abundantly clear at this point.

A textual right doesn't need to be, can't be, "constitutionalized"; it was already there. Just because Heller formally acknowledges the text, that no more constitutionalizes it than did the early 20th century cases that formally defined the scope of free speech rights. Scalia gave an interpretative parameter to a textual right, i.e. that individual gun ownership is subject to heightened scrutiny.

That is a different animal than taking a right that on its face is already dealt with solely by the states and reading it into the meaning of other language. You "constitutionalize" by marrying something to the due process clause of the 14th amendment, for instance.

[HudsonGator]

A textual right doesn't need to be, can't be, "constitutionalized"; it was already there. Just because Heller formally acknowledges the text, that no more constitutionalizes it than did the early 20th century cases that formally defined the scope of free speech rights. Scalia gave an interpretative parameter to a textual right, i.e. that individual gun ownership is subject to heightened scrutiny.

That is a different animal than taking a right that on its face is already dealt with solely by the states and reading it into the meaning of other language. You "constitutionalize" by marrying something to the due process clause of the 14th amendment, for instance.


Here again is where we disagree. I reject the notion that it is a “textual right.”

Here are the words:

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

I, like Judge Posner (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books/defense-looseness), cannot essentially ignore the first half of the Second Amendment.

Now, if the framers had simply said:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Then I would agree with you, but they didn’t.

You and I continue to go back and forth, but we really haven’t covered any new ground in quite some time.

[Minister_of_Information]

So you agree with a very bad argument. Is that supposed to be surprising? The 9th Amendment precludes the interpretation of Posner that the prefatory clause of the 2nd could serve as a constraint upon the rights of the people (specifically named in the Amendment). And the Bill of Rights was clearly intended to shackle the government permanently on certain fundamental issues rather than serve as a fluid point of departure for later rights. The rest doesn't warrant comment, but suffice it to say that much better analysis is available.

[wargunfan]

With the passage of ostensibly unconstitutional gun control laws the country is rapidly dividing into slave and free states. The slave states of California, New York and several others are proceeding to make their citizens less and less free while many other states are enlarging the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. We can only pity those citizens who are victims of their states infringement of the Second Amendment. Those of us who still live in free states must work to free our fellow citizens in the slave states.
"There’s no getting around it: a citizen without a gun is a slave, or at least well on his way to becoming one. When push comes to shove, as it has throughout human history, he is literally defenseless against his own government.
By contrast, a citizen with a gun is a free man. He has an effective tool with which he can defend his life and liberty—even if he dies in that attempt. He answers to himself and his God (should he have one) rather than dictates of tyrants.
And so those of us who understand the distinction between a free man and a slave watch with despair and determination as state and federal governments run roughshod over Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. And we wonder: what will happen to the free men marooned in America’s slave states?"
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/civilian-disarmament-creates-two-americas-slave-states-vs-free-states/

[HudsonGator]

With the passage of ostensibly unconstitutional gun control laws the country is rapidly dividing into slave and free states. The slave states of California, New York and several others are proceeding to make their citizens less and less free while many other states are enlarging the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. We can only pity those citizens who are victims of their states infringement of the Second Amendment. Those of us who still live in free states must work to free our fellow citizens in the slave states.
"There’s no getting around it: a citizen without a gun is a slave, or at least well on his way to becoming one. When push comes to shove, as it has throughout human history, he is literally defenseless against his own government.
By contrast, a citizen with a gun is a free man. He has an effective tool with which he can defend his life and liberty—even if he dies in that attempt. He answers to himself and his God (should he have one) rather than dictates of tyrants.
And so those of us who understand the distinction between a free man and a slave watch with despair and determination as state and federal governments run roughshod over Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. And we wonder: what will happen to the free men marooned in America’s slave states?"
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/civilian-disarmament-creates-two-americas-slave-states-vs-free-states/

An armed populace ≠ freedom

[wargunfan]

I hear a faint bleating coming from afar. I can't quite make it out. Oh well. Let's move on.

[HudsonGator]

Let's move on.

Indeed

[GolphinGator]

Much like a few of the gun grabbers I have read on this post this guy knows nothing about guns or gun laws. Bad thing is he is in charge of the new gun laws and only one step from being your president.

http://http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/27/joe-biden-has-more-gun-advice-just-fire-the-shotgun-through-the-door/

[wargunfan]

Let's all run out on the back porch and fire our double barreled shotguns in the air! lol

[GolphinGator]

Let's all run out on the back porch and fire our double barreled shotguns in the air! lol

I guess my link didn't work. He now says just shoot through the door.

[wargunfan]

I guess my link didn't work. He now says just shoot through the door.

Broken link. Yes let's all shoot through the door and let the police sort out the innocent bystanders from the criminals bodies. Biden is a classic liberal who won't let ignorance stand in the way of useless feel good legislation.

[neisgator]

Wanna make a liberals head explode? Ask him how many lives are SAVED by guns annually.

[jdrgator]

Wow, I never heard that witticism before.

[MichiGator2002]

An armed populace &ne; freedom

Nope, but it is manifestly, definitively closer to it than a disarmed populace.

[DanseRusse]

And the definition is that the people hold supreme power. We do not. This we are not a democracy. I don't understand why you are still posting.

Apparently you can't understand anything either. I don't know why we are still debating any of these issues. You just have your notes on repeat and don't answer any new material thrown your way.

[jdrgator]

Nope, but it is manifestly, definitively closer to it than a disarmed populace.

Not exactly factual. Unless of course you mean just about the mere existence of guns vs not. But since we live in a society that actually has laws which does place some limits on our freedoms in different ways since that is what it takes to live in a society in the first place, at least one that wouldn't be in a state of constant anarchy where we'd be ripping each others heads off far more than we do now, then a populace simply having guns vs not having guns has little to do with moving us closer to some nebulous definition of freedom.

[HudsonGator]

Apparently you can't understand anything either. I don't know why we are still debating any of these issues. You just have your notes on repeat and don't answer any new material thrown your way.

I am still waiting for you to explain your claim that we don't live in a democracy notwithstanding the clear definition of a democracy which I provided.

Here is what you said:

We area (sic) democratic republic not a democracy. A true democracy wouldn't work. And to be fair, this one as of late is just getting by.

And here's Webster's definition of democracy:

a) government by the people; especially: rule of the majority; b) a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Continuing to deny the obvious makes you look foolish.

[Minister_of_Information]

Well there's the polisci sense of "democracy," and then there's the vernacular sense. And in the polisci sense, the US is not a democracy, it is a Federal republic. In the vernacular sense, any popular form of government is considered democratic which would of course include Federal republics. Naturally as that sense is quite general it is seldom used analytically, being not very useful. But by all means, enjoy your distinction without a difference. We're used to it.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

In this thread alone, Hudson has demonstrated many things;

1.) He does not understand weapons very well and is not very conversant on different functionality between weapons and why they have different functionality
2.) He is not knowledgeable about various gun laws
3.) He does not understand the second amendment very well
4.) He does not understand the difference between a Democracy and a Republic
5.) He is not aware that the type of government in the USA is a Republic, not a Democracy.

What have I missed?

[Minister_of_Information]

6) He does not have even a basic grasp of military history

[wargunfan]

While the existence of an armed populace may not create any new or enlarged freedoms, it surely does play a role in the continued existence of those freedoms. Those leaders, some of whom are not elected, who would overthrow the government must include in any calculus of tyranny the fact that they will face millions of armed citizens. If, for example, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces decided to remove the government in favor of military rule they would face an armed militia of tens of millions of citizens ready, willing and able to restore the legal government. On the other hand an unarmed people would be at the mercy of such a coup d'etat.

[Minister_of_Information]

wargun, I think it is just as likely that a coup would be a response to tyranny as the cause of it.

[HudsonGator]

In this thread alone, Hudson has demonstrated many things;

1.) He does not understand weapons very well and is not very conversant on different functionality between weapons and why they have different functionality
2.) He is not knowledgeable about various gun laws
3.) He does not understand the second amendment very well
4.) He does not understand the difference between a Democracy and a Republic
5.) He is not aware that the type of government in the USA is a Republic, not a Democracy.

What have I missed?

You've missed quite a lot actually.

1) I understand weapons, I would bet you that I have fired more rounds through assault weapons than just about anyone on this board, certainly anyone who has voiced an opinion in this thread. Simply because I do not share your love of guns does not mean I do not understand them. I just don't like them very much.

2) Which gun laws do I not understand? The only "gun law" even discussed in this thread is the Second Amendment (which isn't really a law technically speaking), and again, my views are different than yours, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the arguments on both sides.

3) See above

4) Anytime you want to explain to me how the U.S. is not a democracy, I am happy to listen. So far I am the only person who has provided a definition of a democracy, and no one has offered an alternative definition. If you have a different definition of democracy, let's have it.

5) I understand the U.S. is a republic. I never claimed it wasn't. Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps that is what you don't understand.

Here's what you should know, you betray the weakness of your arguments and/or your own intellect when you attack the person and not their views.

Keep tying.

[HudsonGator]

While the existence of an armed populace may not create any new or enlarged freedoms, it surely does play a role in the continued existence of those freedoms. Those leaders, some of whom are not elected, who would overthrow the government must include in any calculus of tyranny the fact that they will face millions of armed citizens. If, for example, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces decided to remove the government in favor of military rule they would face an armed militia of tens of millions of citizens ready, willing and able to restore the legal government. On the other hand an unarmed people would be at the mercy of such a coup d'etat.



The evidence does not support this argument. In the last 200 years how have the rights of Englishmen been trampled simply because their rights to own firearms have been restricted? What about an Israeli's rights, how have their rights been compromised as a result of gun restrictions? Or an Australian's?

At the end of the day, this is where the two the sides of this debate diverge and cannot be reconciled:

On the one hand you have people like yourself who believe that guns and freedom are somehow inexorably linked.

On the other hand, you have people like myself who reject the notion that without guns we cannot have a free society.

These competing views on freedom really are hopelessly at odds.

[Minister_of_Information]

We're content with the intellectual company of the Founders, you can have Posner. Hope is not a plan and the Founders understood that all too well. In any case, the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired due to the attempted disarmament of the people by the (then) government.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

You've missed quite a lot actually.

[quote]1) I understand weapons, I would bet you that I have fired more rounds through assault weapons than just about anyone on this board, certainly anyone who has voiced an opinion in this thread. Simply because I do not share your love of guns does not mean I do not understand them. I just don't like them very much.

You keep bragging about your military experience and how much you know about guns. But anyone with a modicum of weapon experience knows that the difference in time it takes to fire a AR15 with a 30 round magazine compared to two 15 round magazines and 3 ten round magazines can be measure in 3 to 4 seconds

2) Which gun laws do I not understand?

All of them.

The only "gun law" even discussed in this thread is the Second Amendment (which isn't really a law technically speaking), and again, my views are different than yours, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the arguments on both sides.

See, you do not understand the difference between a law and a constitutional amendment. There is a HUGE difference between the two.



4) Anytime you want to explain to me how the U.S. is not a democracy, I am happy to listen.

Actually, as you have demonstrated, you have not "listened" as several people have tried to educate you on the matter.

5) I understand the U.S. is a republic. I never claimed it wasn't. Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps that is what you don't understand.

No one said they are mutually exclusive. But they ARE different. VERY DIFFERENT.

Here's what you should know, you betray the weakness of your arguments and/or your own intellect when you attack the person and not their views.



Aaaannd now the ad homenin attacks.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

If tanks are outlawed, only criminals will have tanks. Here are some blurbs from the Wall Street Journal;

Weapons buffs may stock semiautomatics in the gun safe. But nothing makes a statement like having an Army tank in the garage. …there are several hundred to 1,000 private tank owners in the U.S. …Brothers Ken and Gene Neal, owners of Bullet Proof Diesel, a truck-parts manufacturer in Mesa, Ariz., once took their 1966 British Chieftain tank into the desert and joyfully backed it over a rusty car. When their insurance agent inquired about their plans for the tank, the Neal brothers emailed back, “We are going to use it to take over the world.” Says Ken Neal, 45: “A tank is cool.”


But is it legal?

Yup, and it can even have a working gun if you’re willing to fork over $200 for a permit.

A tank in the U.S. can have operational guns, if the owner has a federal Destructive Device permit, and state laws don’t prohibit it. The permit costs $200, and the applicant must swear he hasn’t been a “fugitive from justice,” “adjudicated mentally defective” or convicted of “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” A local law-enforcement official, usually a sheriff or police chief, has to sign off on the application. Tanks generally aren’t street-legal, so owners usually drive them off-road or on other private property. Some say local authorities sometimes make exceptions for parades, a quick test drive or a trip to the gas station.

But won’t tanks in private hands lead to horrible crimes? Doesn’t seem that way, particularly since the story mentions that the only tank used in a crime was one taken from a government armory.

And in sensible places such as Texas, local police think a tank is “awesome,” not a cause for hysteria.

Earlier this month, Mr. Bauer, the Texas banker, took his Chaffee out for a spin in his warehouse parking lot. He had rigged the .50-caliber machine gun on the turret with a propane system that generates the noise and muzzle flash of gunfire, without the bullets. He fired off several bursts. Minutes later, two Port Lavaca police cruisers pulled up. The first officer rolled down the window and asked dryly: “You know why we’re here, right?” Mr. Bauer assured him that no actual rounds had been fired. …The second policeman, Jeremy Marshall, got out of his car and eyeballed Mr. Bauer’s tank. “Awesome,” he said.

Meanwhile, a 6-year old boy in Maryland is suspended for making a gun shape with his fingers and a 5-year old girl in Pennsylvania is busted for having a pink plastic gun that shoots bubbles.

The best of America…and the worst of America.

But we shouldn’t be resting on our laurels. Most able-bodied men in Switzerland have fully automatic guns (i.e., capable of continuous firing) in their homes, so it’s an open question which nation is more “awesome.”

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/

[gatorchris]

The evidence does not support this argument. In the last 200 years how have the rights of Englishmen been trampled simply because their rights to own firearms have been restricted? What about an Israeli's rights, how have their rights been compromised as a result of gun restrictions? Or an Australian's?

At the end of the day, this is where the two the sides of this debate diverge and cannot be reconciled:

On the one hand you have people like yourself who believe that guns and freedom are somehow inexorably linked.

On the other hand, you have people like myself who reject the notion that without guns we cannot have a free society.

These competing views on freedom really are hopelessly at odds.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

You are missing a key point about guns and freedom, and that is if the government is armed and the populace isnt, there is nothing to stop tyranny. If the government wasnt armed, your idea of a disarmed populace not having to worry about tyranny makes sense. Like it or not this country was founded by citizen soldiers, and those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Ill certainly listen harder to your views when you can say with any certainty that power no longer corrupts.

[wargunfan]

wargun, I think it is just as likely that a coup would be a response to tyranny as the cause of it.

We can never be sure where tyranny will arise. I believe that it will be far less likely if those who would usurp the rights of the people must also fear the response of the people.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!

[HudsonGator]

You keep bragging about your military experience and how much you know about guns. But anyone with a modicum of weapon experience knows that the difference in time it takes to fire a AR15 with a 30 round magazine compared to two 15 round magazines and 3 ten round magazines can be measure in 3 to 4 seconds

I am not bragging, I think I am stating a fact, and moreover I am only responding to your childish allegation that I don't "understand weapons." While you are correct, the time required to change magazines is a matter of seconds, those seconds can mean the difference between life and death. In the Giffords mass shooting, it wasn't until Jared Loughner stopped to reload his high capacity magazine for his Glock that he was tackled by two bystanders (http://abcnews.go.com/US/heroes-rep-gabrielle-giffords-shooting-tucson-arizona-subdued/story?id=12580345) which ultimately ended his rampage.

Look, I don't think civilians need to own weapons with 30 round magazines, just like I don't believe citizens need to own machine guns or any other currently prohibited weapon. Those are my views, I understand that you don't share them. Attacking me won't convince me that I am wrong.

All of them.

Since no law have been discussed by me or anyone else, please be specific.

See, you do not understand the difference between a law and a constitutional amendment. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

I think I understand the difference quite well, as a matter of fact I specifically pointed out that a statute and a constitutional provision are different. Please direct my attention to any post in which I said otherwise.

Actually, as you have demonstrated, you have not "listened" as several people have tried to educate you on the matter.

Once again you are wrong, no one has provided any definition for the word democracy which is at odds, or in anyway different, than the definition I provided. If you have one, let's see it.

No one said they are mutually exclusive. But they ARE different. VERY DIFFERENT.

And once again, I never said they weren’t, rather I refuted the notion that we do not live in a democracy, as we most certainly do. Hopefully it is clear to you at this point that we live in both a republic and a democracy.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

Aaaannd now the ad homenin (sic) attacks.

While I obviously disagree with you, I will not lower myself by attacking you.

[HudsonGator]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

You are missing a key point about guns and freedom, and that is if the government is armed and the populace isnt, there is nothing to stop tyranny. If the government wasnt armed, your idea of a disarmed populace not having to worry about tyranny makes sense. Like it or not this country was founded by citizen soldiers, and those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Ill certainly listen harder to your views when you can say with any certainty that power no longer corrupts.

Perhaps I just have more confidence in the stability of our Republic. We as a nation can be proud of the fact that we are a nation of laws. That is our greatest strength and I do not believe our freedom is in anyway strengthened by the number of guns owned by civilians.

We are no more free than the English, the Australians, the Israelis, or anywhere else in the Western world where gun ownership is restricted.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

While you are correct, the time required to change magazines is a matter of seconds, those seconds can mean the difference between life and death. In the Giffords mass shooting, it wasn't until Jared Loughner stopped to reload his high capacity magazine for his Glock that he was tackled by two bystanders (http://abcnews.go.com/US/heroes-rep-gabrielle-giffords-shooting-tucson-arizona-subdued/story?id=12580345) which ultimately ended his rampage.

An armed gunman can reload a magazine in far less time than it takes a fit man 25 feet away to rush and "tackle him.

Look, I don't think civilians need to own weapons with 30 round magazines, just like I don't believe citizens need to own machine guns or any other currently prohibited weapon.

You get to have those beliefs. And you get to act on them on your own behalf. You just don't get to impose them on others.

Since no law have been discussed by me or anyone else, please be specific.

You mean other than you do not know the difference between a constitutional amendment and a law? I can also find other examples in this thread where you showed you did not understand current gun law. For example, you stated it was illegal for citizens to own machine guns. That is false.

But there is no need to show other examples. Others did it and you refused to acknowledge it

I think I understand the difference quite well, as a matter of fact I specifically pointed out that a statute and a constitutional provision are different. Please direct my attention to any post in which I said otherwise.

You mean other than the one I quoted. Why would I need to show another example?

And once again, I never said they weren’t, rather I refuted the notion that we do not live in a democracy, as we most certainly do.

We live in a Republic. Which is a much more confined form of government than a democracy. I don't know how many examples we can show to you that this is true.

I will not lower myself by attacking you.


You mean, except for when you do? Listen, you can continue to question my intelligence and the intelligence of others all you want. Just try and avoid behaving all whiny when someone calls you on it.

[HudsonGator]

An armed gunman can reload a magazine in far less time than it takes a fit man 25 feet away to rush and "tackle him.

The facts on the ground in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011, would suggest that the seconds it takes to change a magazine can make the difference between life and death.

You get to have those believes (sic). And you get to act on them on your own behalf. You just don't get to impose them on others.

On the contrary, in a democratic society the majority often imposes its beliefs upon those in the minority. When there are enough people in this Country who think like I do and who elect like minded people to power, the laws get changed. That's life in a democracy.

It will happen, sadly it may take more kindergartners getting slaughtered by an AR-15, but it will happen eventually. I have faith.

You mean other than you do no know the difference between a constitutional amendment and a law? I can also find other examples in this thread where you showed you did not understand current gun law. For example, you stated it was illegal for citizens to own machine guns. That is false.

Wrong again. It is illegal for civilians to own machine guns. Now, it is true that there is an expensive and difficult permit that one can ultimately obtain from the Federal government that would ostensibly allow a civilian to own a machine gun; but simply because that process exists does not make it legal for you to run out and buy a fully auto AK.

You mean other than the one I quoted. Why would I need to show another example?

I am afraid you still haven't. Try again.

We live in a Republic. Which is a much more confined form of government than a democracy. I don't know how many examples we can show to you that this is true.

I am amazed we are still debating this point. You obviously don't understand that a republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive and that it is possible for one to live in both; indeed, as we do in the U.S.

You mean, except for when you do? Listen, you can continue to question my intelligence and the intelligence of others all you want. Just try and avoid behaving all whiny when someone calls you on it.

I see no need to question your intelligence, your posts do that quite well.

[Minister_of_Information]

The facts on the ground in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011, would suggest that the seconds it takes to change a magazine can make the difference between life and death.

There are two sides of that coin of course.

[neisgator]

Wow, I never heard that witticism before.

Well, if you have heard it, how about clueing yourself in on that fact.
You know, let it sink in.

[neisgator]

We're content with the intellectual company of the Founders, you can have Posner. Hope is not a plan and the Founders understood that all too well. In any case, the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired due to the attempted disarmament of the people by the (then) government.

Well said. Thank you, sir.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

The facts on the ground in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011, would suggest that the seconds it takes to change a magazine can make the difference between life and death.

So, one incident makes the case? You can't point to one case where have a magazine restriction would save one life. If for no other reason that you would have to assume the criminal would follow such a law.


On the contrary, in a democratic society the majority often imposes its beliefs upon those in the minority. When there are enough people in this Country who think like I do and who elect like minded people to power, the laws get changed. That's life in a democracy.

My goodness man. For the millionth time. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. We are one of the few. That means we have a constitution. That means people cannot vote for laws that are unconstitutional.

You really, really ought to study American history more.

It will happen, sadly it may take more kindergartners getting slaughtered by an AR-15, but it will happen eventually. I have faith.

How about shotguns. Or hand guns? Or rifles?



Wrong again. It is illegal for civilians to own machine guns.

No, it is not. As your next sentence states.



I see no need to question your intelligence, your posts do that quite well.

Ahh yes. Another ad homin attack.

[wygator]

The facts on the ground in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011, would suggest that the seconds it takes to change a magazine can make the difference between life and death..

Suppose there had been a legal carry person nearby. You would not have had to wait for an empty magazine to remove the threat.

There would have been a much bigger difference in life and death in this event.

Suppose Newtown school had one armed security officer. How many lives may have been saved that day? While most of the office personnel would still likely be dead if he hadn't been in that area of the school, but I'm guessing he could have prevented most of the children's deaths.

[HudsonGator]

So, one incident makes the case? You can't point to one case where have a magazine restriction would save one life. If for no other reason that you would have to assume the criminal would follow such a law.


I made the case already. The facts are very clear, Jared Loughner's rampage would have been less deadly and would have ended sooner had he simply had a standard issue magazine in his Glock rather than an extended, high capacity magazine.


My goodness man. For the millionth time. We don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. We are one of the few. That means we have a constitution. That means people cannot vote for laws that are unconstitutional.

You obviously don't understand the difference.

I will try one more time.

The definition of a republic:

a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government; b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Definition of a democracy:

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

If you read the highlighted text above, hopefully you can see that the two definitions are not mutually exclusive, and that it is indeed possible, as in the case of the U.S., to live in both a republic and a democracy.

If that doesn’t help you understand, try to think of it in terms of a Venn Diagram.


http://maggiecakes.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/venn-diagram.jpg


Imagine that circle A is democracy and that circle B is a republic. The area where the two circles overlap is the U.S.


How about shotguns. Or hand guns? Or rifles?


Not really sure I understand the point you are trying to make, but how about this, I will concede that all guns are potentially deadly, some simply have more of a capacity for inflicting death than others.


No, it is not. As your next sentence states.


I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.


Ahh yes. Another ad homin (sic) attack.

Nope.

[HudsonGator]

Suppose there had been a legal carry person nearby. You would not have had to wait for an empty magazine to remove the threat.

There would have been a much bigger difference in life and death in this event.

Suppose Newtown school had one armed security officer. How many lives may have been saved that day? While most of the office personnel would still likely be dead if he hadn't been in that area of the school, but I'm guessing he could have prevented most of the children's deaths.

Yes, those are possibilities, and yes they may have made the situations less deadly, just like if the shooters had been less well armed then there may have been fewer dead bodies at the end of the day.

[PIMking]

Okay so since the founding fathers didn't foresee an assault rifle and they should be banned they should ban anything other than printed paper media since they don't have the computer in the constitution

[HudsonGator]

Okay so since the founding fathers didn't foresee an assault rifle and they should be banned they should ban anything other than printed paper media since they don't have the computer in the constitution

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, glad we cleared that up.

[OB1]

And perhaps you should move to Yemen, there are lots of gun freaks in Yemen.

See how easy that is, not much of an argument of course, but easy nonetheless.

I don't need to move. The country I live in was founded by "gun freaks" who thought it was very important to protect the right of "gun freaks" to keep and bear arms.

This sir is why you should move to a country that shares your views. Go ahead and get a little practice, give up and wave your white flag, you have lost this debate badly. Your opinions on gun control are a little too extreme to get a foothold in the USA! There are far to many victims of crime, their numbers increase daily, they want to be protected and our big government has failed them. There is only one logical thing to do, protect yourself!

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

[HudsonGator]

I don't need to move. The country I live in was founded by "gun freaks" who thought it was very important to protect the right of "gun freaks" to keep and bear arms.

This sir is why you should move to a country that shares your views. Go ahead and get a little practice, give up and wave your white flag, you have lost this debate badly. Your opinions on gun control are a little too extreme to get a foothold in the USA! There are far to (sic) many victims of crime, their numbers increase daily, they want to be protected and our big government has failed them. There is only one logical thing to do, protect yourself!

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!


Over 50% of this Country doesn't own any firearms. I think I'll stay. I still have hope for the rest of you.

[gatorpa]

What a sad and pathetic little man you must be, now you reduce the argument to the gutter.

Don't quit your day job, Sigmund.

And again you divert the point. Perhaps because you have no reasonable reply.

[gatorpa]

Reading comprehension is a problem I see.

One more time, I will type slowly:

Webster's definition of "democracy:"

[/B]

Whoever taught you to read should be ashamed of themselves.

Another clear cut slur at a poster displaying a different view, classy post.

[wargunfan]

The New York Supreme Court has stated that they will issue an injunction against the new SAFE Act on April 29th—unless the state can prove that the law is constitutional. This puts the burden of proof on the state of New York to show the Act is legal under the newly re-affirmed provisions of the Second Amendment, which is impossible. From WKTV . . .
The Buffalo-based attorney who is spear-heading a lawsuit against Governor Andrew Cuomo’s recent gun laws said that Wednesday was “monumental,” as a State Supreme Court Justice issued an order requiring New York State to show good cause that the law is constitutional.
New York State has until April 29 to respond or else an injunction will be issued.
Bear in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that firearms “in common usage” cannot be restricted. And since the NY SAFE Act’s entire purpose is to restrict ownership of the single most popular firearm in the United States, there’s no way they can make a case that their law complies with the Second Amendment. If this injunction is upheld, then it opens the door for New Yorkers to challenge the standing “assault weapons” ban and other gun laws as well.

[OB1]

Over 50% of this Country doesn't own any firearms. I think I'll stay. I still have hope for the rest of you.

Over 50% or is it possible that a large percentage don't claim to, but do. Many people don't trust our government, I can't blame them, power corrupts.

It's a fact that the number of FBI background checks for firearm purchases have increased every year for almost a decade now. Looks like more people are getting armed. They realize the bad guys don't just ask nicely for your cash and jewelry! Not to mention the fact that the police can't possibly be everywhere the need to be. There are many areas in this country where emergency police response means more than 15 minutes! You waiting or protecting yourself? This is where your hope may come in handy.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

[gatorpa]

In this thread alone, Hudson has demonstrated many things;

1.) He does not understand weapons very well and is not very conversant on different functionality between weapons and why they have different functionality
2.) He is not knowledgeable about various gun laws
3.) He does not understand the second amendment very well
4.) He does not understand the difference between a Democracy and a Republic
5.) He is not aware that the type of government in the USA is a Republic, not a Democracy.

What have I missed?

7)When he is unable to defend his assertions he resorts to insults quickly.

[HudsonGator]

7)When he is unable to defend his assertions he resorts to insults quickly.

Not true, it usually takes at least two posts before I start hurling insults...

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Another clear cut slur at a poster displaying a different view, classy post.

The guys is getting his but kicked in rational arguments. He has to resort to this. It is his only defense.

[neisgator]

Another clear cut slur at a poster displaying a different view, classy post.

If you were owned over 16 pages you'd resort to that as well

[HudsonGator]

If you were owned over 16 pages you'd resort to that as well

"Owned?"

I think not.

[Minister_of_Information]

Pwned is more accurate anyway.

[gatorpa]

Over 50% of this Country doesn't own any firearms. I think I'll stay. I still have hope for the rest of you.

But will you have any change left after the next 4 yrs???

[PIMking]

lol he thinks less than 50% own guns, it's more like less than 50% that wont admit they own guns

[wargunfan]

http://www.imageurlhost.com/images/sbvs2ijfinbb1bacmks.jpg

[Minister_of_Information]

In case you were wondering if they were playing.

REGARDING LEO SALES
March 1st, 2013

Back in 1990, when I was deployed in Desert Shield and Desert Storm as a Marine grunt, some companies prioritized me items for my M16 for shipping that I purchased with my own funds. After getting out and forming Magpul in 1999, I established the same priority policy for Military and Law Enforcement, due to the requirements of their profession.

The same policy has been in place for 13 years now and has never been an issue until a few days ago. I do not support the idea that individual police officers should be punished for the actions of their elected officials. That said, I understand the concerns that some have with Law Enforcement officers getting special treatment while at the same time denouncing second amendment rights to another citizen in the same state.

With the fight in Colorado right now we do not have time to implement a new program, so I have suspended all LE sales to ban states until we can implement a system wherein any Law Enforcement Officer buying for duty use will have to promise to uphold their oath to the US Constitution - specifically the second and fourteenth amendments - as it applies to all citizens.

Richard Fitzpatrick
President/CEO - Founder
Magpul Industries

[HudsonGator]

lol he thinks less than 50% own guns, it's more like less than 50% that wont admit they own guns

Or perhaps a large percentage of the 40 something percent who claim to own guns are lying, and it really is only 5%...

[gatorpa]

Or perhaps a large percentage of the 40 something percent who claim to own guns are lying, and it really is only 5%...

Explain why someone would say they have a gun and not really have one.

I can see not telling the GOV that you have one but don't get why one would lie about it in the opposite.

[HudsonGator]

Just to mess with your head

[gatorpa]

Another worthless explaination, shocking.

[HudsonGator]

Another worthless explaination (sic), shocking.

The irony...

[Lawdog88]

We don't know nuttin' bout no guns, Suh.

Whatchu takin' bout ?

[wargunfan]

This short video is an excellent explanation of the difference between a semiatuo sporting rifle and a true assault weapon which were banned from civilian purchase in 1986. It is well worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0

[tegator80]

This short video is an excellent explanation of the difference between a semiatuo sporting rifle and a true assault weapon which were banned from civilian purchase in 1986. It is well worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0

Sorry, but you can't fight stupid with common sense.