Sign in to follow this  
billy backstay

Registered my high capacity mag w/state of CT- STOOPID LAW!

Recommended Posts

 

 

I for one am so excited that you (in the Pacific North Wet) is on the 'same page' as some idiotic idiots in a one of the Thirteen Colonies. Makes me wanna go target shooting right now with some 'illegal' hi-cap mags.

 

You, sir, are an idiot of epic proportions......

 

Oh, hi Rick. Tell us some more, the one about the garage prowler that got away last summer. How, unfortunately, neither of you was armed. What you coulda done, etc.

 

 

Hey Kaptain Dip-Shit, if you would have read the story you would know that the methed out fuk-apple who snuck up me in my garage WAS carrying a gun. A stolen Police Special revolver in .357 in fact. And that my own gun was around the corner, in the kitchen, which unfortunately was behind the little prick.

 

Gawd damn but it's like every fuking hour here you prove once again what a stupid, uncomprehending bumbling idiot you truly are. Please go away and fuk off elsewhere, Troll-Boi.....

 

According to your earlier version, the perp had tossed the piece, but it was recovered nearby. And only a table of parts separated you from tackling him. Breathless stuff. Coulda woulda, too bad he got away, if only...

 

Know what? I don't think you make a suitable gun safety instructor for children. Just sayin'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would a state official come out to receive something that was donated to a locality?

 

To demonstrate "second amendment friendliness"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But it gets curioser. It may be covered elsewhere, but the CT Sandy Hook Commission has spoken, and they want long or short guns with hi capacity mags curtailed.

 

This Commission had a few psychiatrists, a school principal, a few present or former chiefs of police, a pediatrician, a Homeland Security rep, the Mayor of Hamden, a teacher, a pediatrician, a guidance counseling administrator, juvenile risk supervisors...and a fire chief.

 

It was an open process; they had 28 meetings, each with open minutes. The first was forty days after Sandy Hook. Their Interim Report involved city and school defense strategies, not broad gun policy direction.

 

Tom and Billy, I am somewhat sympathetic. But simply put, the CT legislators and I are on the same page. ANY idiot can push his behavior until his gun should be taken, hopefully by friends. It appears that our society has reached the point.

 

By "curtailed" you mean, of course, confiscated.

 

Thanks for your sympathy, but I would not want a magazine confiscated if I had a naughty one like Billy's and the fact that he registered it instead of handing it in tells me he does not want his confiscated either.

 

It will be confiscated when he dies, since that's how slow-motion bans involving a closed registry work.

 

Do you now at least have some understanding of why we fear confiscation? We don't want it, you and powerful politicians advocate it. We'll stop complaining about it just after you stop advocating it. Since that appears unlikely, get used to the complaints about the confiscation you advocate. And since our fears are very much real, as your admission above shows, you can quit calling them paranoid.

 

Tom, the bolded are your words, and are not my position.

By "curtailed" I mean a process similar to what happened to machine guns.

Please, they were not confiscated at large. Machine guns/fully automatic weapons may have been registered, restricted, priced into oblivion, had their registry closed, (and may have been "banned", according to one swamp-bound Florida gun apologist bot), but they have not been confiscated.

 

 

May I suggest, Tom, that your elk need deal with why guns are so unpopular, and all gun confiscation will be a non-starter.

 

There is no way for me to say that unregistered guns are going to work out. But registration is not confiscation.

 

Gun confiscation is never automatic, universal, or absolute. Look, choices are made by certain at-risk gunowners that sometimes may lead to confiscation.

 

 

Gun confiscation has a continuum, a scale of probability.

You could go postal one minute from now and consequently have your firearms taken away five minutes from now.

Or you could wait five years and misbehave and have them ALL taken away in five years.

Or you could behave well and probably NEVER get them taken away.

But at the end of the day, we are managing lethal objects here; it's not supposed to be easy; and gun collection is more probable without good safety leadership in the gun community. We don't have that, so don't blame "gun confiscator" bogey men in a vacuum.

AW's and LCM's are being viewed as excessive by many citizens and certain courts. (Thumbs up: They are used in half of our mass shootings, and mass shootings have trebled in the last decade.) No worries, other firearms are available.

 

 

O Badgeless One, you have been heavy with the confiscation rhetoric recently. To scream "confiscation" repeatedly in a theatre is poor form. And it's hyperbole, to generate fear. Basically, you are generating confiscation fear instead of addressing gun violence. IF you can control the destiny of guns, it will not be with fear, or belligerence with guns, either

 

I am going to admit in 20-20 hindsight, that in my view these damn objects (AW's and LCM's)shouldn't have survived the gutting of the 1994 AW ban. It is painful to note their acceptance, then to find braggadocio that the supposed AW ban didn't work.

 

 

Yeah, I wonder why.TheCaliforniare-load_zps10572d7f.png

 

 

Put me down, based on track record, for registration of the objects first, for licensing and insuring the gun owners, and for confiscation in specific and graduating terms if it becomes necessary. You are gonna be hatin' it. Since the weapon is to a gun incident as a mosquito is to malaria, action against either agent is considered fair play.

 

David Koresh is an example of someone who chose combat upon ATF examination, thus increasing his own gun confiscation probability. He pushed confiscation to Armageddon status, but many other options and behaviors are open. In milder ways, the gun community is self-inflicting a similar wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But it gets curioser. It may be covered elsewhere, but the CT Sandy Hook Commission has spoken, and they want long or short guns with hi capacity mags curtailed.

 

This Commission had a few psychiatrists, a school principal, a few present or former chiefs of police, a pediatrician, a Homeland Security rep, the Mayor of Hamden, a teacher, a pediatrician, a guidance counseling administrator, juvenile risk supervisors...and a fire chief.

 

It was an open process; they had 28 meetings, each with open minutes. The first was forty days after Sandy Hook. Their Interim Report involved city and school defense strategies, not broad gun policy direction.

 

Tom and Billy, I am somewhat sympathetic. But simply put, the CT legislators and I are on the same page. ANY idiot can push his behavior until his gun should be taken, hopefully by friends. It appears that our society has reached the point.

 

By "curtailed" you mean, of course, confiscated.

 

Thanks for your sympathy, but I would not want a magazine confiscated if I had a naughty one like Billy's and the fact that he registered it instead of handing it in tells me he does not want his confiscated either.

 

It will be confiscated when he dies, since that's how slow-motion bans involving a closed registry work.

 

Do you now at least have some understanding of why we fear confiscation? We don't want it, you and powerful politicians advocate it. We'll stop complaining about it just after you stop advocating it. Since that appears unlikely, get used to the complaints about the confiscation you advocate. And since our fears are very much real, as your admission above shows, you can quit calling them paranoid.

 

Tom, the bolded are your words, and are not my position.

By "curtailed" I mean a process similar to what happened to machine guns.

Please, they were not confiscated at large. Machine guns/fully automatic weapons may have been registered, restricted, priced into oblivion, had their registry closed, (and may have been "banned", according to one swamp-bound Florida gun apologist bot), but they have not been confiscated.

 

...

 

O Badgeless One, you have been heavy with the confiscation rhetoric recently. To scream "confiscation" repeatedly in a theatre is poor form. And it's hyperbole, to generate fear. ..

Put me down, based on track record, for registration of the objects first, for licensing and insuring the gun owners, and for confiscation in specific and graduating terms if it becomes necessary. ..

 

David Koresh is an example of someone who chose combat upon ATF examination, thus increasing his own gun confiscation probability. He pushed confiscation to Armageddon status, but many other options and behaviors are open. In milder ways, the gun community is self-inflicting a similar wound.

 

 

The bolded words are what is in the law under discussion. Billy's magazine was grandfathered in when he registered it, but will be confiscated if he dies owning it in that state since it can't be inherited. The Governor's panel of experts has recommended going ahead and confiscating it now. We're not supposed to discuss that? Do you agree with the recommendation to confiscate now?

 

Machine guns can be inherited. Post 1986 ones are banned according to anyone who knows the law. This situation is different.

 

When I quote politicians who propose gun bans and laws that require surrender or confiscation of guns, why do you call this "screaming confiscation" and poor form? We're not allowed to talk about what politicians propose and what's in the laws? If proposing and passing laws that call for confiscation generates fear that there will be laws that call for confiscation when I quote them, is that really my fault?

 

In the context of the CT laws and proposed changes we are discussing, I'm curious about when you think it might become necessary to confiscate Billy's magazine? Now, as the Governor's panel recommends? When he dies, as the current law requires? Not until it is used in a crime, as I would recommend? Or do you have some other answer? If you want to dispel all the paranoia about confiscation, you're going to have to openly say when you would curtail confiscate Billy's magazine.

 

You should really check out Waco: The Rules of Engagement. You've been lied to and the video proves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would a state official come out to receive something that was donated to a locality?

 

To demonstrate "second amendment friendliness"?

 

haha, we demonstrated that by passing the latest pre-emption law. You know the one all the panty twisters are calling the NRA law. Sheesh, funny how in one thread the NRA is controlling the entire govt and the next thread they are persona non grata and are totally marginalized. Seriously man, you need to stay on one tack at least long enough to get up to speed before pushing the tiller over again or else you are just going to put yourself into irons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why would a state official come out to receive something that was donated to a locality?

 

To demonstrate "second amendment friendliness"?

 

haha, we demonstrated that by passing the latest pre-emption law. You know the one all the panty twisters are calling the NRA law. Sheesh, funny how in one thread the NRA is controlling the entire govt and the next thread they are persona non grata and are totally marginalized. Seriously man, you need to stay on one tack at least long enough to get up to speed before pushing the tiller over again or else you are just going to put yourself into irons.

 

Take it easy on the crowing, skipper.

I can find the full text of this. Two state officials declined their invitation to accept the NRA check. So your claim of PA being "second amendment friendly" is pretty shaky.

 

The NRA has thunder, and will have thunder for an indefinite period. They publicly threatened the supporters of the new Surgeon General last month, after losing that battle. They smell bad AND have lots of power, Len.

 

For two years, your outrageous PA pre-emption bill found no sponsor....while avoiding committee.

Your new, extremist pre-emption law was only passed with thief-in-the night democracy, tacked onto on a copper theft bill, yo.

Which is contrary to PA state law, which expressly requires single-issue legislation.

 

This has been deemed unconstitutional by many, including your (Pennsylvania's) attorney general).

She folded and will not defend the state in the first of several lawsuits.

Last October, a Pennsylvania state senator successfully added a potential windfall for the National Rifle Association and other gun groups to a bill intended to protect against certain forms of metal theft. The new metal theft law’s gun provisions permit the NRA and similar groups to sue cities, townships and other localities that provide their citizens with additional protections from guns beyond the protections that already exist in state law. It also potentially could force these local governments to pay for the privilege of being sued by the NRA. As a result, several Pennsylvania townships have already repealed ordinances requiring residences to report a lost or stolen gun.1

On Thursday, however, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D) announced that she will not defend this metal-theft-turned-gun-protection-act against a lawsuit alleging that the way it was passed violates the state constitution. A provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that, “[n]o bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof.” The lawsuit alleges that, because guns have little to do with metal theft, the new law violates this provision of the state constitution.

In light of Kane’s decision not to defend the law, lawyers working for the state’s governor — currently Republican Gov. Tom Corbett — have the option of taking up the case. Corbett, however, is a lame duck and his replacement, Gov.-elect Tom Wolf (D), is a Democrat.

 

 

 

***********************************

 

One man's collection is another man's arsenal. I live with both, and recognize both, Len.

You have shared with us on these boards your purchase of 30 guns in 2013, and another fifteen guns in the first part of 2014. You may be compulsive about guns or fixated on guns; at a minimum, you may be less than objective. The word advocate comes to mind.

However, I like the point you make that rural and city gun behavior needs to be handled accordingly, and separately. But it clearly catches you in a contradiction. This rural vs. city nuance of local law trumps your support of gun law pre-emption in PA. Many Pennsylvania jurisdictions, such as Harrisburg and Lancaster presently, have recognized gun problems for decades and have tried to adapt gun laws to the needs of their jurisdictions. They have been prevented from the controls you suggest by the pre-emption you support.

http://abc27.com/2015/01/05/harrisburg-mayor-fires-back-against-gun-ordinance-legal-threat/>

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-in-lawsuit-challenging-new-state-gun-law/article_227ec500-66c0-11e4-a33f-0017a43b2370.html>

No offense, Len, but you avoided PBO's kind suggestion; a certain attitude, a high-risk armed confrontation acceptance termed as "self-defense", may be contributing to the US gun problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why would a state official come out to receive something that was donated to a locality?

 

To demonstrate "second amendment friendliness"?

 

haha, we demonstrated that by passing the latest pre-emption law. You know the one all the panty twisters are calling the NRA law. Sheesh, funny how in one thread the NRA is controlling the entire govt and the next thread they are persona non grata and are totally marginalized. Seriously man, you need to stay on one tack at least long enough to get up to speed before pushing the tiller over again or else you are just going to put yourself into irons.

 

Take it easy on the crowing, skipper.

I can find the full text of thius. Two state officials declined their invitation to accept the NRA check.

The NRA has thunder, and will have thunder for an indefinite period. They publicly threatened the supporters of the new Surgeon General last month, after losing that battle.

 

For two years, your outrageous PA premption bill found no sponsor....while avoiding committee.

Your new, extremist pre-emption law was only passed with thief-in-the night democracy tacked onto on a copper theft bill, yo.

Which is contrary to PA state law, which expressly requires single-issue legislation.

 

This has been deemed unconstitutional by many, including your (Pennsylvania's) attorney general).

She folded and will not defend the state in the first of several lawsuits.

>Last October, a Pennsylvania state senator successfully added a potential windfall for the National Rifle Association and other gun groups to a bill intended to protect against certain forms of metal theft. The new metal theft law’s gun provisions permit the NRA and similar groups to sue cities, townships and other localities that provide their citizens with additional protections from guns beyond the protections that already exist in state law. It also potentially could force these local governments to pay for the privilege of being sued by the NRA. As a result, several Pennsylvania townships have already repealed ordinances requiring residences to report a lost or stolen gun.1

On Thursday, however, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D) announced that she will not defend this metal-theft-turned-gun-protection-act against a lawsuit alleging that the way it was passed violates the state constitution. A provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that, “[n]o bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof.” The lawsuit alleges that, because guns have little to do with metal theft, the new law violates this provision of the state constitution.

In light of Kane’s decision not to defend the law, lawyers working for the state’s governor — currently Republican Gov. Tom Corbett — have the option of taking up the case. Corbett, however, is a lame duck and his replacement, Gov.-elect Tom Wolf (D), is a Democrat.

 

 

 

***********************************

 

One man's collection is another man's arsenal. I live with both, and recognize both, Len.

You have shared with us on these boards your purchase of 30 guns in 2013, and another fifteen guns in the first part of 2014. You may be compulsive about guns or fixated on guns; at a minimum, you may be less than objective. The word advocate comes to mind.

However, I like the point you make that rural and city gun behavior needs to be handled accordingly, and separately. But it clearly catches you in a contradiction. This rural vs. city nuance of local law trumps your support of gun law pre-emption in PA. Many Pennsylvania jurisdictions, such as Harrisburg and Lancaster presently, have recognized gun problems for decades and have tried to adapt gun laws to the needs of their jurisdictions. They have been prevented from the controls you suggest by the pre-emption you support.

http://abc27.com/2015/01/05/harrisburg-mayor-fires-back-against-gun-ordinance-legal-threat/>

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lancaster-in-lawsuit-challenging-new-state-gun-law/article_227ec500-66c0-11e4-a33f-0017a43b2370.html>

No offense, Len, but you avoided PBO's kind suggestion; a certain attitude, a high-risk armed confrontation acceptance termed as "self-defense", may be contributing to the US gun problem.

 

 

 

First off, the only way they pass anything in PA is with thief in the night tactics. It is just how we roll here, and this bill is no different. Our PA bill took years to pass because it is difficult to pass anything big here. Now that we are done with the pre-emption, we are working on constitutional carry, so you will have something new to bitch about in another 2 years.

 

As far as our AG, she is close to being indicted, even if there is a slight hitch in the proceedings. Forgive me if I don't trust a criminal's word on what is legal and what is not.

 

There is no contradiction in my statements regarding rural vs urban rules regarding firearms. The local laws being passed in Philly and Harrisburg were illegal and could have had folks from other parts of the state unreasonably fouled up defending themselves against an unconstitutional law. Philly is already treated differently than other parts of the state according to state law. There is no unlicensed open carry permitted in Philly, whereas there is in the rest of the state. If the state govt determines there should be other differences, I am ok with that as well, but there is no reason to create a hodgepodge of laws across all the various municipalities. Everyone knows the state law and can follow it, that is the way it should be.

 

I did not avoid PBO's suggestion, I addressed it. I do not agree with the premise. Most folks are intent on avoiding conflict, our violence epidemic is fictional not real. To the degree we have a problem at all, it is driven by drugs and the war on drugs. There are places with high gun ownership which have low levels of violent crime, and areas with high gun ownership with high levels of crime, but what is consistent is that wherever there is a significant drug problem you will also see a high level of violent crime. New gun laws will not stop people from shooting up heroin. New gun laws will not create a regulated and legal drug market. If you want to do something positive, then advocate for reforming how we deal with drugs and junkies. If you want to continue to hash out your own emotional issues related to guns, carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

In the context of the CT laws and proposed changes we are discussing, I'm curious about when you think it might become necessary to confiscate Billy's magazine? Now, as the Governor's panel recommends? When he dies, as the current law requires? Not until it is used in a crime, as I would recommend? Or do you have some other answer? If you want to dispel all the paranoia about confiscation, you're going to have to openly say when you would curtail confiscate Billy's magazine.

 

...

 

 

FFS the confiscation straw man, your loaded question/hot button recently, has been answered, directly I might add, on the Stoopid CT Law thread.

 

You have not posted in this thread since I asked those questions, let alone answered them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

In the context of the CT laws and proposed changes we are discussing, I'm curious about when you think it might become necessary to confiscate Billy's magazine? Now, as the Governor's panel recommends? When he dies, as the current law requires? Not until it is used in a crime, as I would recommend? Or do you have some other answer? If you want to dispel all the paranoia about confiscation, you're going to have to openly say when you would curtail confiscate Billy's magazine.

 

...

 

 

>FFS the confiscation straw man, your loaded question/hot button recently, has been answered, directly I might add, on the Stoopid CT Law thread.

 

You have not posted in this thread since I asked those questions, let alone answered them.

 

 

Correct. Connection problems here. Tom, sometimes it's not about YOUR questions. I pointed to a continuum of confiscation from individuals driven by certain individuals. Give it some thought, because beyong that the collective perception of guns are what is driving the desire for minor or major confiscation.

 

Furthermore, guns are to gun violence what mosquitoes are to malaria; agents of a defined epidemic. According to their combined science approach, guns WILL become suspect, and subject to limitation. I reported that here long ago, after nreading their combined intentions as decided at the IOM/CDC powow.

 

No enough with the nasty anger, hopefully.

 

Say, my editing features are balky. Excuse this quote format.

The bolded words are what is in the law under discussion. Billy's magazine was grandfathered in when he registered it, but will be confiscated if he dies owning it in that state since it can't be inherited. The Governor's panel of experts has recommended going ahead and confiscating it now. We're not supposed to discuss that?

It's not that. It's that you sound pretty panicky.

Seriously.Do you agree with the recommendation to confiscate now?

I'm afraid so. I don't know what happened withn this commitee, but their interim report was bland broad safety talk, quite un-remarkable. They tossed input around and came to ,like I do, that battlefield weapon toys are just too much, ideally, in this society. It speaksto a social ideal to strive to.

Machine guns can be inherited. Post 1986 ones are banned according to anyone who knows the law. This situation is different.

Oh, come on. Talk about cry me a river (your recent term).

The universe will do just fine without CT's LCM's, same for the other 50 jurisdictions. Why can't you go shoot something else? Because of liberty?

When I quote politicians who propose gun bans and laws that require surrender or confiscation of guns, why do you call this "screaming confiscation" and poor form? Because every damn time example of evil fonfiscation is just certain guns, or for certain at-risk groups, and for partifcular reasons. A because there are too many guns around in the first place, they are crowding themselves into public places, and they are NOT delivering safety. We're not allowed to talk about what politicians propose and what's in the laws? If proposing and passing laws that call for confiscation generates fear that there will be laws that call for confiscation when I quote them, is that really my fault? Talk as you wish.

David Koresh engineered his own demise, on camera. He was his own worst enemy. He generated fear, amassed an arsenal, and then questions were asked. Then he acted a certain way, and confiscation, sure enough, then applied.

The modern gun lobby is presenting a belligerent armed social challenge to normalcy, while the weapons under discussion are used in half the mass shootings, which have trebled in the last decade. MANYother nice weapons are available.

In the context of the CT laws and proposed changes we are discussing, I'm curious about when you think it might become necessary to confiscate Billy's magazine? Now, as the Governor's panel recommends? When he dies, as the current law requires? Not until it is used in a crime, as I would recommend? Or do you have some other answer?

Based on 20-20 hindsight, I want Billy's extraneous military toy illegal as of Feinstin's unfortunate compromises , say fall of 1994.

If you want to dispel all the paranoia about confiscation, you're going to have to openly say when you would curtail confiscate Billy's magazine. I disagree entirely (but the date is above). I say go to the source of paranoia to dispel it. Of course.

You should really check out Waco: The Rules of Engagement. You've been lied to and the video proves it.

(I'll try to watch your Waco flick only if its somewhat credible and only if you'll stay on-topic with myself and others.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

In the context of the CT laws and proposed changes we are discussing, I'm curious about when you think it might become necessary to confiscate Billy's magazine? Now, as the Governor's panel recommends? When he dies, as the current law requires? Not until it is used in a crime, as I would recommend? Or do you have some other answer? If you want to dispel all the paranoia about confiscation, you're going to have to openly say when you would curtail confiscate Billy's magazine.

 

...

 

 

>FFS the confiscation straw man, your loaded question/hot button recently, has been answered, directly I might add, on the Stoopid CT Law thread.

 

You have not posted in this thread since I asked those questions, let alone answered them.

 

 

You are correct. My internet contact has been ghosty for a few days. A few other posts had to be reconstructed.

Apparently an internet connection is crashing or switching, swallowing the text after the POST is hit

 

This is a tough but bold and honest one coming Tom, so calm the hell down for a change.

I discused a range of behaviors, and a scale of confiscation.

And I note that you use confiscation in absolute terms, while every damn example you can provide is limited and somewhat reasonable.

 

Having editing diffs. Black is Tom Ray:

The bolded words are what is in the law under discussion. Billy's magazine was grandfathered in when he registered it, but will be confiscated if he dies owning it in that state since it can't be inherited. The Governor's panel of experts has recommended going ahead and confiscating it now. We're not supposed to discuss that?It's not that. It's that you sound pretty panicky.

Seriously.Do you agree with the recommendation to confiscate now?

I'm afraid so. I don't know what happened withn this commitee, but their interim report was bland broad safety talk, quite un-remarkable. They tossed input around and came to ,like I do, that battlefield weapon toys are just too much, ideally, in this society. The commitee speaks to a social ideal to strive to.

Machine guns can be inherited. Post 1986 ones are banned according to anyone who knows the law. This situation is different.

Oh, come on. Talk about cry me a river (your recent term).

The universe will do just fine without CT's LCM's, same for the other 50 jurisdictions. Why can't you go shoot something else? Because of liberty?

When I quote politicians who propose gun bans and laws that require surrender or confiscation of guns, why do you call this "screaming confiscation" and poor form? Because every damn time example of evil fonfiscation is just certain guns, or for certain at-risk groups, and for partifcular reasons. A because there are too many guns around in the first place, they are crowding themselves into public places, and they are NOT delivering safety. We're not allowed to talk about what politicians propose and what's in the laws? If proposing and passing laws that call for confiscation generates fear that there will be laws that call for confiscation when I quote them, is that really my fault? Talk as you wish.

David Koresh engineered his own demise, on camera. He was his own worst enemy. He generated fear, amassed an arsenal, and then questions were asked. Then he acted a certain way, and confiscation, sure enough, then applied. You guys are sort of doing the same thing.

The modern gun lobby is presenting a belligerent armed social challenge to normalcy, while the weapons under discussion are used in half the mass shootings, which have trebled in the last decade. MANY other nice weapons are available.

 

In the context of the CT laws and proposed changes we are discussing, I'm curious about when you think it might become necessary to confiscate Billy's magazine? Now, as the Governor's panel recommends? When he dies, as the current law requires? Not until it is used in a crime, as I would recommend? Or do you have some other answer?

Based on 20-20 hindsight, I truly want Billy's extraneous military toy illegal as of Feinstin's unfortunate compromises , say fall of 1994.

If you want to dispel all the paranoia about confiscation, you're going to have to openly say when you would curtail confiscate Billy's magazine. I disagree entirely. I say go to the source of paranoia to dispoel it.

You should really check out Waco: The Rules of Engagement. You've been lied to and the video proves it.

(Tinfoil hat stuff? I'll try to watch your Waco flick only if its somewhat credible and only if you'll stay on-topic with myself and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder your wife left you. As would any other semi-normal woman who is a first hand witness to a man who is rapidly going E.A. Poe, right in front of her eyes.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

In the context of the CT laws and proposed changes we are discussing, I'm curious about when you think it might become necessary to confiscate Billy's magazine? Now, as the Governor's panel recommends? When he dies, as the current law requires? Not until it is used in a crime, as I would recommend? Or do you have some other answer? If you want to dispel all the paranoia about confiscation, you're going to have to openly say when you would curtail confiscate Billy's magazine.

 

...

 

 

....

And I note that you use confiscation in absolute terms, while every damn example you can provide is limited and somewhat reasonable.

 

 

...

 

Machine guns can be inherited. Post 1986 ones are banned according to anyone who knows the law. This situation is different.

Oh, come on. Talk about cry me a river (your recent term).

The universe will do just fine without CT's LCM's, same for the other 50 jurisdictions. Why can't you go shoot something else? Because of liberty?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on 20-20 hindsight, I truly want Billy's extraneous military toy illegal as of Feinstin's unfortunate compromises , say fall of 1994.

 

I don't think classifying Airsoft guns nor Ruger 10/22's as "assault weapons" is even somewhat reasonable, but you say every example I posted is somewhat reasonable. So are you going on record as thinking Airsoft guns are assault weapons, or do you want to amend your statement?

 

There was no reason to close the machine gun registry in 1986 and there's no reason to ban and confiscate Billy's magazine now. The main reason not to do so would be that the very guns you hate the most are the ones that are most useful for maintaining order and preserving liberty if a day comes when our government does not function as we expect.

 

US v Miller details how citizens used to be required to keep militarily useful weapons and ammo for militia service. Which would be more useful, an Airsoft gun or a mean-looking rifle like Billy's? I know you're probably on board with the Handgun Control Inc Brady Center view that the second amendment applies only in the home, but my reading of history is a bit different. I think we had outdoor militias. I doubt we can agree on that, but it is the historically accurate version.

 

Banning and confiscating the very weapons that are the most important ones for the second amendment to protect seems to me to undermine the amendment. I don't own a mean-looking rifle, but one day might want to own one. I want to be able to buy it new, in a store. Yes, I could go shoot something else like I do now, but I may decide that I want the most useful weapons we have produced.

 

Anyway, thanks for the direct answer this time. I don't agree that confiscating millions of ordinary rifles and ammo from people like Billy is an answer any more than I agree that such weapons only belong on the battlefield.

 

If you truly believe that they belong only on the battlefield, why have I never seen you decry the exemptions for law enforcement that always accompany these bans closed registries? Our streets are not battlefields and police are not soldiers. Citizens should be able to possess anything the police can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think classifying Airsoft guns nor Ruger 10/22's as "assault weapons" is even somewhat reasonable, but you say every example I posted is somewhat reasonable. So are you going on record as thinking Airsoft guns are assault weapons, or do you want to amend your statement?

Whack a mole again? No opinion on airsoft guns, mate. WTF?

There was no reason to close the machine gun registry in 1986 others disagreed, evidently and there's no reason to ban and confiscate Billy's magazine now. Look to the broader picture. The main reason not to do so would be that the very guns you hate the most are the ones that are most useful for maintaining order and preserving liberty if a day comes when our government does not function as we expect.I see. Assault weapons are what are holding this all together. Rod Serling could have made you famous, Badgeless One.

US v Miller details how citizens used to be required to keep militarily useful weapons and ammo for militia service. Which would be more useful, an Airsoft gun or a mean-looking rifle like Billy's? Would you get off airsoft guns? Even for you that is a bizarre straw man to introduce into my time. Are airsoft guns significant to my interests in solvingt gun violence? Badgeless Boy topic I know you're probably on board with the Handgun Control Inc Brady Center view that the second amendment applies only in the home, but my reading of history is a bit different. I think we had outdoor militias. So what. Childish. I doubt we can agree on that, but it is the historically accurate version. Which says little. Men can be fools with guns indoors or outdoors, too.

Banning and confiscating the very weapons that are the most important ones for the second amendment to protect belly laugh seems to me to undermine the amendment. I don't own a mean-looking rifle, but one day might want to own one. I want to be able to buy it new, in a store. Yes, I could go shoot something else like I do now, but I may decide that I want the most useful weapons we have produced.

Anyway, thanks for the direct answer this time. I don't agree that confiscating millions of ordinary rifles and ammo from people like Billy is an answer any more than I agree that such weapons only belong on the battlefield.

If you truly believe that they belong only on the battlefield, why have I never seen you decry the exemptions for law enforcement that always accompany these bans closed registries? Our streets are not battlefields and police are not soldiers. Citizens should be able to possess anything the police can.What a childish question.

Tom, I offered many insights on what causes confiscation, individually, and laid out the anti's overall desire to can guns.

(Yes, the guns' track record and your collective profile is on display.)

I have wanted a discussion with you about confiscation, but this isn't it.

You have not broken down confiscation in any way, yet it's not really an absolute.

You have not addressed modest or limited curtailing of guns, yet Heller expressly approved that.

Have you only thought out defensive positions, like in a bunker?

I want some guns curtailed, yes, but don't assign me the responsibility for your paranoia.

You are blaming antis for your paranoia. To address paranoia, look for the source of it.

Paranoia is self-generated...within oneself.

The scorn of guns is because they are scourging lives...and you can't control that.

If epidemiology is correct, that controlling agents of epidemics (HIV needles, mosquitoes, nicotene, for example) has been shown to be effective, and that's what they declared as combined sciences in the IOM/CDC report you didn't read, guns are on the line and this conversation is eminent. Non smartgun hanguns are probably going to get challenged, just because.

You only have a problem if some guns or all guns merit confiscation.

The second one is off the table.

The first one you are allowing to be controlled by extremists, who have being challenged by determined CT lawmakers,

whose study group said that firearm lethality needs to be curtailed.

Gun safety isn't supposed to be easy, Tom.

Again, shouting "confiscation" in a crowded theater innit gonna get 'er done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whack a mole again? No opinion on airsoft guns, mate. WTF?

 

...

Would you get off airsoft guns? Even for you that is a bizarre straw man to introduce into my time.

You said that in all cases, these assault weapons are banned for good reasons. I have recently posted where one of the bans includes Airsoft guns. If you can't find the post, I will.

 

So I'll ask again: do you really believe Airsoft guns should be classified as AW's and banned? Because that's what you are saying by saying all the bans on AW's are legit.

 

Same with Ruger 10/22's and NY's unconstitutional ban on magazines over 7 rounds, by the way. I don't think a 10/22 is an AW, nor do I think an Airsoft is, but both are banned as such.

 

Sorry for once again quoting from the actual laws that call for banning and confiscating weapons. I know that feeds into fear that there are and will be actual laws that call for banning and confiscating weapons. The day they are all repealed and people like you stop asking for more bans and confiscation, I will stop bitching about it. As long as you keep supporting ridiculous bans and the confiscation that goes along with them, I'm going to continue to argue against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whack a mole again? No opinion on airsoft guns, mate. WTF?

 

...

Would you get off airsoft guns? Even for you that is a bizarre straw man to introduce into my time.

You said that in all cases, these assault weapons are banned for good reasons. I have recently posted where one of the bans includes Airsoft guns. If you can't find the post, I will.

 

So I'll ask again: do you really believe Airsoft guns should be classified as AW's and banned? Because that's what you are saying by saying all the bans on AW's are legit.

 

Same with Ruger 10/22's and NY's unconstitutional ban on magazines over 7 rounds, by the way. I don't think a 10/22 is an AW, nor do I think an Airsoft is, but both are banned as such.

 

Sorry for once again quoting from the actual laws that call for banning and confiscating weapons. I know that feeds into fear that there are and will be actual laws that call for banning and confiscating weapons. The day they are all repealed and people like you stop asking for more bans and confiscation, I will stop bitching about it. As long as you keep supporting ridiculous bans and the confiscation that goes along with them, I'm going to continue to argue against it.

 

Again, Tom, I must decline to be sidetracked into the weeds by your third introduction of the topic of airsoft guns.

That said, FIsh & Game's nifty weapon of choice on Tiger Mt. for citizen control of our local bear population: frozen paintball ammo.

 

 

 

.

 

 

Does registration lead to confiscation? It may someday, and it may have in limited ways in past cases. But it takes several interim developments, some in the control of the individual gun owner, and possibly some driven by the gun culture and gun industry separately.

Let's address who may be "at risk" as individuals or groups on the people side.

You guys want to blame crazies, but the docs say nope.

I suspect the trail will lead to aggressive types, self-defense-types, or let's say insecure types...if we find that Tuesday golfers are at risk, too bad.

The jury is out, you could clean in up. Show leadership in developing a culture where marginal gunowners are encouraged to back off on guns.

Tom, let's review. I find polarization on the issue itself leveraged (playing the "confiscation card"), general laxity towards access to guns, guns in the hands of the foolish, the resistance to background checks based on confiscation logic, 112 violent right-wing nut jobs in 18 years, plus outlandish gun legislation-by-night, each contributing to the danger of further "confiscation." The gun lobby and choir directors (you know who you are Tom) are in the driver's seat politically in this situation, but no offense, are not solution-oriented.

This only gives Shannon Watt a bigger soapbox and more people standing in front of it, wishing guns would just go away. As each year passes and 100,000 Americans are shot (counting the wounded), x 10 friends each, because of gun damage it gets worse for you. For very real reasons unrelated to propaganda, they are visualizing confiscation, organizing for it, and succeeding modestly.

But they don't cause confiscation. Gun damage does. If you can't get ahead of gun damage, try damage control...not defiance.

I am visualizing a co-operative gunowner culture, including the development and support of any policies and laws necessary, to change the culture of gun violence. "At risk" needs to be re-defined; my layman's take is to assess "at risk" attitudes and belief systems.

Finger-pointing at "confiscators" is scapegoating the effect. Bozos with guns are the cause, and that may mean humans with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawd damn but if your dad was alive today he'd kick you right in the pussy. I for one am truly ashamed that you have a penis. Please remove it immediately and send it back.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am visualizing a co-operative gunowner culture, including the development and support of any policies and laws necessary, to change the culture of gun violence.

Joe, you keep repeatedly using the word "gun culture". Could you please define exactly what that is and exactly what your perfect gun culture would look like? Please use as many examples as you feel necessary. Long cut and pastes of more studies is not what I'm looking for. I'm serious, I would like to better understand what exactly it is you are visualizing. You're using a lot of nebulous words and concepts but you never really nail down for the reader what exactly that "culture" should look like in your utopian world. thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW - the gunowner culture was relatively open to new regulations prior to the 1994 AWB. Then they passed that POS law and we all saw what the real agenda was and it had nothing to do with crime reduction. It was a farce. And then we see the same political elk try to do it again and more in the wake of Sandy Hook. So pardon us if we are a little skeptical when you ask us to be open and understanding.

 

Offer up a new policy or regulation that actually addresses the issue and I'll be happy to talk. But when you blame law-abiding gunowners like Tom and I for the "culture of violence" - you can politely go fuck yourself. Because nothing I do or say contributes to a violent gun culture. I think you are pointing the finger in the wrong place. I suggest you start here:

 

article-2645941-1E65C1D200000578-530_634

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Again, Tom, I must decline to be sidetracked into the weeds by your third introduction of the topic of airsoft guns.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Does registration lead to confiscation? It may someday, and it may have in limited ways in past cases....

The jury is out, you could clean in up. Show leadership in developing a culture where marginal gunowners are encouraged to back off on guns.

 

 

I did not write the law that included Airsoft guns as assault weapons. I just think whoever did has gone too far and wonder if you can agree that that (or any) gun control law goes too far?

 

Yes, registration leads to confiscation. It has in the past. You can try to soften it with "may have" but I know my history. It has. The fact that you can't acknowledge it is among the things that makes me think you want to repeat that history.

 

Show me why Billy is a marginal gun owner. You said his magazine should have been confiscated back in 1994, should not have been grandfathered in under the recent ban, and that the Governor's panel is right to call for it to be confiscated right away.

 

OK, so what did he do to prove himself marginal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the 2nd amendment in the home only thread...

 

 

 

Chicago suburb Highland Park's mean looking weapons ban to face 7th Circuit challenge

 

The 7th Circuit federal court of appeals will hear a case against a local ban on some common rifles, handguns, shotguns, and magazines. The city of Highland Park, notorious for its anti-second amendment laws, passed an ordinance that requires residents to turn in, modify or remove the banned items from the city. Ordinance 136(pdf) deals with "Assault Weapons"

...

While those who have studied the second amendment might expect a quick striking down of the law, the district court upheld it, essentially holding that second amendment protections were very, very narrow. In the Courthouse News article, no references were made to U.S. v Miller, where the Supreme Court held that arms that were effective for militia use were protected.

Clearly, semi-automatic firearms are useful for militias. The Seventh Circuit may also provide guidance on what the court considers as 'common'. The plaintiffs say that many of the banned guns are "common". As the AR and AK style rifles are some of the most popular in the country, it is a severe stretch to claim that they are not 'common'

 

I was not the first to notice that they ban Airsoft guns as "assault weapons."

 

I found particularly amusing the fact that the ban seems to include nearly all airsoft guns. The ordinance includes a ban on all "Large Capacity Magazines" and has a very broad definition of what a firearm is. From the ordinance:

(F) "Firearm" means any device, by whatever name known, which is
designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas or escape of gas, excluding however:

(1)
Any pneumatic gun, spring gun or B-B gun which expels a
single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inches in diameter;

As most airsoft guns use expansion of gas, or escape of gas to propel projectiles of greater than .18 inches in diameter, and have magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds, they seem to be included.

 

The law bans a long list of ordinary guns by name and by features, and might even ban things like my Glock 27, depending on how they interpret "Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand."



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Show leadership in developing a culture where marginal gunowners are encouraged to back off on guns.

 

 

Show me why Billy is a marginal gun owner. You said his magazine should have been confiscated back in 1994, should not have been grandfathered in under the recent ban, and that the Governor's panel is right to call for it to be confiscated right away.

 

OK, so what did he do to prove himself marginal?

 

Yes, I too would like to know why BBS is "marginal". Although I don't think there is a chance in hell of getting a straight answer out of "tapdancing joe calhoun".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Show me why Billy is a marginal gun owner. You said his magazine should have been confiscated back in 1994, should not have been grandfathered in under the recent ban, and that the Governor's panel is right to call for it to be confiscated right away.

 

OK, so what did he do to prove himself marginal?

 

Yes, I too would like to know why BBS is "marginal". Although I don't think there is a chance in hell of getting a straight answer out of "tapdancing we don use others' real names on this forum".

 

(Jeffie. No offense, no biggie, but your post was reported for terms of use violation. See the recent sticky.)

 

The scale of confiscation may be applied to high risk individuals. And I never placed Mr. Backstay as one of them,

Please quote where I did.

 

Tom, again, your bit is twisting thoughts and intentions here.

 

And here

Tom Ray, on 25 Jan 2015 - 17:47, said:

By "curtailed" you mean, of course, confiscated.

and here

 

(From jocal) And you seem to be dancing around some solid points I raised about both Gary Kleck's numbers

and his claims that illegal gun use was driving his DGU theory. You cited his numbers as your DGU justification, so man-up.

(from Tom Ray) If you're going to try to get me to defend the "more guns less crime" thing I'm going to again ask you where I said that. Again, you'll have to admit that I did not.

Whew! I have to admit something I didn't say.

That is not manning up. Kleck's numbers supported, in word, the moregunslesscrimecrap. And outragous rape prevention forecasts, your favorite. To quote him is to go with moregunslesscripecrap without using those very words. Read Kleck '97, his second peer defense.

"Kleck himself admitted in 1997, in response to criticism of his survey, that 36 to 64 percent of the defensive gun uses reported in the survey were likely illegal—meaning the firearm was used to intimidate or harm another person rather than for legitimate self-defense."

Will Caxton

Pasted from <http://www.onthemedia.org/story/myth-behind-defensive-gun-ownership/>

 

 

*****************************

 

Can you read? The scale of probability applies to high-risk individuals.

I can't quote them saying it, but the logic researchers presented has high-risk guns in their crosshairs.

 

I have stated that several different ways, subtly enough that no uproar was created.

 

Mosquitoes fared poorly in the yellow fever campaign, and with three AR15's involved in certain mass murders, and half the mass murders involving AW's and LCM's, you draw the conclusion. As I reported repeatedly, the researchers have long been asking which guns are involved in what problems (injuries, incidents, homicides, indoors, outdoors, etc)

 

 

 

Thus Cuntfinder the Great is barking up the wrong tree with his quickdraw theory thinking about applying MADD tactics.

The train has left that station, right about when damage reached measurably epidemic numbers.

 

Guns are agents in gun incidents. Expect the scale of confiscation probability to reflect the most dangerous guns.

Come on, LCM's and AR's are weapons of choice for half our mass murderers

 

 

And economist John R. Lott started it, actually. He was once both cutting-edge and ahead of his time...in get this, epidemiology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey JokeAwf, since Eddie couldn't do it, I'm gonna ask you. How many 'assault' rifles have benn used in American 'mass' murders? And how many victims did they 'claim'. And I mean dead victims.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TOM RAY, KELLERMAN, AND CREDIBILITY GO INTO A BAR...

In random's recent exposure of Tom Ray's inter-state non-gun violence non-comparisons,

Tom didn't correct his work and re-present it, did he? (See Myths of self-defense thread p5)

Neither did John R. Lott (who has not been accepted for peer review since his NAS disgrace).

Neither did Gary Kleck.

Please note: Dr. Arthur Kellerman corrected study conclusions and data gathering methods until they worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW - the gunowner culture was relatively open to new regulations prior to the 1994 AWB. Then they passed that POS law and we all saw what the real agenda was and it had nothing to do with crime reduction. It was a farce. And then we see the same political elk try to do it again and more in the wake of Sandy Hook. So pardon us if we are a little skeptical when you ask us to be open and understanding.

 

Offer up a new policy or regulation that actually addresses the issue and I'll be happy to talk. But when you blame law-abiding gunowners like Tom and I for the "culture of violence" - you can politely go fuck yourself. Because nothing I do or say contributes to a violent gun culture. I think you are pointing the finger in the wrong place. I suggest you start here:

 

Oh look, see the choirboy.

 

The one Carlos Danger needs to avoid at some US regattas.

The one who relishes in the self-destruction of the ganstas.

The one who would shoot a shirtless tire-chucker rather than retire armed

but who elsewhere claims last-resort intentions.

The choirboy who said this

Jeff, 26 DGU's to oppose 26 criminal homicides.

Post 2587, Gun Nutter Sttrikes Again

jocal505, on 31 Aug 2014 - 16:28, said:

To expose what you are laying out here, even if 26 DGU's matched 26 criminal homicides, that's what one would call a real mess. It would show a broken, gun-ridden society. Is that what you are proposing?

JBSF, on 31 Aug 2014 - 23:54, said:

I would call that a "good start".....

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&page=26>

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting rid of America's bad guys, in any manner, is a GOOD thing JokeAwf. You should relish & savor the very moment every-fuking-time that one of them meets an early demise. ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey JokeAwf, since Eddie couldn't do it, I'm gonna ask you. How many 'assault' rifles have benn used in American 'mass' murders? And how many victims did they 'claim'. And I mean dead victims.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Rick

 

Under that greeting you are expecting a lot.

 

You like FBI numbers, I hear. (Note: this first one does not apply to mass murders as such.)

the FBI defines an "active shooting" as an incident during which "both law enforcement personnel and citizens[my italics] have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses."

A report on active shooting incidents just released by the FBI which analyzed 160 "active shootings" resulting in injuries to 1,043 victims, including 486 deaths, between 2000 and 2013.

Pasted from <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/fbi-report-active-shooters_b_5900748.html>

151 shooting rampage victims in 2012, click here

Overall mass murder total? Haven't found that.

 

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

There have been at least 67 in the last three decades—and most of the killers got their guns legally.

—By Mark Follman, Gavin Aronsen, and Deanna Pan

AW's and or LCM's are used in half of these shootings

 

 

Across those four categories, we account for assault weapons and guns using high-capacity magazines that would be specifically outlawed by the new legislation. The data includes all guns recovered at the scene in each case, though not all of them were used in the crimes. Using this criteria we found:

  • 42 guns with high-capacity magazines, across 31 mass-shooting cases
  • 20 assault weapons, across 14 mass-shooting cases
  • 33 cases involving assault weapons or high-capacity magazines (or both)

A total of 48 of these weapons (accounting for the overlap between the two categories) would be illegal under the new legislation.*

Pasted from <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein>

Nearly 80 percent of the perpetrators in these 62 cases obtained their weapons legally.

Pasted from <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/jared-loughner-mass-shootings-mental-illness>

Full data for MJ

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting rid of America's bad guys, in any manner, is a GOOD thing JokeAwf. You should relish & savor the very moment every-fuking-time that one of them meets an early demise. ....

That's vigilante tripe.

 

You, sir, are both good and bad in my view. Same for me, bubba.

IMO love is merely that which brings out the good; an enemy is someone who only fixates on the bad.

 

 

 

Rick, to not bust your chops, please check this out

Wikipdia: (first line)

 

A vigilante is a civilian who undertakes law enforcement with or without legal authority.

 

But hear me clearly: I object to legal vigilantism, too... because some men will make posts like yours, based on belief systems like yours, and will get results like each other.

 

The good news is you could have once ridden with Col. Gilliam's Oregon volunteer militia to effectively avenge some vile murders. The bad news is you would have violated civil rights right and left, and would have committed genocide---which is no hi-tone application of the constitution. Chaos and loss of rights is how vigilantes and armed civil unrest pan out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am visualizing a co-operative gunowner culture, including the development and support of any policies and laws necessary, to change the culture of gun violence.

Joe, you keep repeatedly using the word "gun culture". Could you please define exactly what that is and exactly what your perfect gun culture would look like? Please use as many examples as you feel necessary. Long cut and pastes of more studies is not what I'm looking for. I'm serious, I would like to better understand what exactly it is you are visualizing. You're using a lot of nebulous words and concepts but you never really nail down for the reader what exactly that "culture" should look like in your utopian world. thanks in advance.

 

Bucket List for better Gun Culture:

A gun culture which comes down hard on bozos with guns would be perfect.

One with positive civic participation patterns as opposed to insurrectionist philosophies, yeah, a definite plus.

One that stands up to internal patterns of dishonesty, and emotes honor, and demonstrates responsibility.

A culture which pushes leading-edge research to accommodate the special needs of the second amendment.

A gun culture with a plan, for example, for the $3.7 mil needed for ID University security after CC was forced on 8 unwilling colleges.

A gun culture which could tame human nature + guns would be nice.

A gun culture that could designate some state parks and some federal parks off limits to firearms.

How about a gun culture whose trade publications are not censored and not paralyzed?

A sport culture that subsidizes the public health cost of guns, and metal detector passages as needed?

Hows about a gun culture that sends LaPierre packing and sells the USA on a sincere, workable plan to reduce gun violence to certain levels, with concessions attached for progress.

A gun culture that is not locked into the bore physics and ammo feeding capacity involved in these military guns, just for sport and mainstream home defense.

 

 

My mind needs to be open on this journey of compromise, you see. But in my view, this situation needs moderate gun leadership, and will find creative forces among owners for positive gun leadership.

Jeff, the landscape will be different then.

 

This is not REALLY a Mexican standoff over confiscation issues; that's gotta be positioning.

You have well-spoken, solution-oriented, reasonable leaders somewhere. Right?

There is no way this is your best---it is too much like Bob Corbin, early nineties on the NRA = pigs thread "We shall never retreat, never surrender"

 

But keep it up, force gun management by others, guns can be regulated the easy way or the hard way. Heller said so.

I am tired of all the post-Heller Crocodile angst.

 

Too bad you thrashed Dick Metcalf, who was saying the right things, at the right time.

He got canned exactly one year after Sandy Hook for discussing restrictions...

so I'll go with Shannon baby until I see less recalcitrant gun culture leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Show me why Billy is a marginal gun owner. You said his magazine should have been confiscated back in 1994, should not have been grandfathered in under the recent ban, and that the Governor's panel is right to call for it to be confiscated right away.

 

OK, so what did he do to prove himself marginal?

 

 

 

 

 

The scale of confiscation may be applied to high risk individuals. And I never placed Mr. Backstay as one of them,

Please quote where I did.

 

Right here:

 

 

Based on 20-20 hindsight, I want Billy's extraneous military toy illegal as of Feinstin's unfortunate compromises , say fall of 1994.

 

Or maybe you want to confiscate guns and magazines from individuals who are not "high risk" and just forgot to exclude him? And millions of others like him?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns first, then knives, then self-driven cars, because we all know that we can't expect and enforce a standard of behavior from everyone. The confiscatory approach tosolving the problem of violence,without first addressing the root causes of that undesirable behavior, simply never ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh fuk me Tom, but you're good at this shit.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whack a mole again? No opinion on airsoft guns, mate. WTF?

 

...

Would you get off airsoft guns? Even for you that is a bizarre straw man to introduce into my time.

You said that in all cases, these assault weapons are banned for good reasons. I have recently posted where one of the bans includes Airsoft guns. If you can't find the post, I will.

 

So I'll ask again: do you really believe Airsoft guns should be classified as AW's and banned? Because that's what you are saying by saying all the bans on AW's are legit.

 

Same with Ruger 10/22's and NY's unconstitutional ban on magazines over 7 rounds, by the way. I don't think a 10/22 is an AW, nor do I think an Airsoft is, but both are banned as such.

 

Sorry for once again quoting from the actual laws that call for banning and confiscating weapons. I know that feeds into fear that there are and will be actual laws that call for banning and confiscating weapons. The day they are all repealed and people like you stop asking for more bans and confiscation, I will stop bitching about it. As long as you keep supporting ridiculous bans and the confiscation that goes along with them, I'm going to continue to argue against it.

 

Tom, you want me to retract a statement you have not actually presented.

You have challenged it. Where is it?

However my attraction may be in order. As we pursue the point.

 

It appears a major travesty of justice has occured wrt airsoft guns. (The subject is so stupid I can't demean myself to press the link. Seriously.)

Which clearly demonstrates somehow that any gun confiscation is a no-go. Tom Ray said so, repeatedly.

 

My dog in this fight comes down to this question: have confiscations been justified, and limited?

Of course, you know this trail of crybaby tears better than I, so lash out with more historical examples of broad-brush or other confiscation.

 

If that's the list, your argument is uncompelling.

So far, I think the grand total of your complaints is both laughable and quotable.

But let's clear the air. Pile on right here: have any revelations with gravitas?

 

 

You are muckraking with revisionist intentions, using values based on ancient concepts of retribution in anger.

The Badgeless Dodging may be part of the gun confiscation problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Show me why Billy is a marginal gun owner. You said his magazine should have been confiscated back in 1994, should not have been grandfathered in under the recent ban, and that the Governor's panel is right to call for it to be confiscated right away.

 

OK, so what did he do to prove himself marginal?

 

 

 

 

 

The scale of confiscation may be applied to high risk individuals. And I never placed Mr. Backstay as one of them,

Please quote where I did.

 

Right here: WRONG HERE. Tom's claim is untrue, since below does not quote me as saying Billy Backstay is "marginal."

I assume, for the record, that BB is as stalwart as any of us.

 

 

>>>Based on 20-20 hindsight, I want Billy's extraneous military toy illegal as of Feinstin's unfortunate compromises , say fall of 1994.

 

Or maybe you want to confiscate guns and magazines from individuals who are not "high risk" and just forgot to exclude him? And millions of others like him?

 

You are a bright person, Tom. I can see that. So follow along.

 

 

Either guns or humans may be classified as high risk.

Billy's toy, a gun magazine, failed the first criteria, based on known lethality and track record in CT circulation.

This, of course, is not to say that Billy failed the second criteria (marginal human behavior).

 

So what we have here is the best gun rights apologist on PA, Tom Ray, muddying the water

and twisting my position not very honestly

instead of presenting viable gun collection scenario.

 

The counterproductive Badgeless Dodging may be contributing to gun confiscation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... Show leadership in developing a culture where marginal gunowners are encouraged to back off on guns.

...

 

Most owners of mean-looking rifles are people like Billy.

 

You apparently don't consider him marginal, you just want his gun taken away.

 

That tells me that it's not about "marginal gunowners" in the vast majority of cases. It's about the guns and your talk of "marginal" owners is just another distraction, since it doesn't matter whether the owner is marginal. You still want his guns confiscated, preferably 20 years ago, but now would be OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Jocals defense here, CT Congresswoman, Elizabeth Esty, in defending her recently proposed gun law, explained that something like 11 people escaped potential slaughter at the Newtown school shooting when the shooter stopped to reload. She does have a point, I think?

 

However, the real issue we as a nation are not facing is mental illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Jocals defense here, CT Congresswoman, Elizabeth Esty, in defending her recently proposed gun law, explained that something like 11 people escaped potential slaughter at the Newtown school shooting when the shooter stopped to reload. She does have a point, I think?

 

However, the real issue we as a nation are not facing is mental illness.

 

It is possible that is true I suppose, however I do wonder how she came to that conclusion. From what I understand, he reloaded a number of times and none of the spent magazines were fully empty. I don't recall where I read that, so I don't have a cite, but I have also not seen any real evidence that 11 people were saved when he reloaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Jocals defense here, CT Congresswoman, Elizabeth Esty, in defending her recently proposed gun law, explained that something like 11 people escaped potential slaughter at the Newtown school shooting when the shooter stopped to reload. She does have a point, I think?

 

However, the real issue we as a nation are not facing is mental illness.

Thx. A lot.

 

BB, a series of sincere articles written by brainy psyche guys say no to that idea. Loonies like me whoops those challenged by mental health issues get victimized by gunplay far more than they implement gunplay.

 

Worse, mental health professionals only have a few indicators to point to high-risk types during the teen years.

(A history of animal cruelty may have been the only teen indicator IIRC.)

I can cite it if requested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... Show leadership in developing a culture where marginal gunowners are encouraged to back off on guns.

...

 

Most owners of mean-looking rifles are people like Billy.

 

You apparently don't consider him marginal, you just want his gun taken away.

 

That tells me that it's not about "marginal gunowners" in the vast majority of cases. It's about the guns and your talk of "marginal" owners is just another distraction, since it doesn't matter whether the owner is marginal. You still want his guns confiscated, preferably 20 years ago, but now would be OK.

 

 

WHY THE GUNGRABBING 101

Well, Tom, you're right from one angle in terms of the sheer numbers of swell guys with AW's. (But there's much more to it than that.)

And you're right that retrieving Billy's gun now would be fine with me, ideally, or if deemed necessary for the public good, or (better yet) if volunteered.

I feel that history has shown the AW Ban of 1994 should not have been gutted.

 

You are wrong wanking to a fantasy that targeting bozos with guns, aka marginal fellows with guns, is a "distraction."

It is the very heart of the matter, one of a few steps I suppose. As many as it takes, right?

 

Now follow along. This relates back to why ALL guns are on the line in the first place.

 

Tom, I cannot of course speak for others. But dammit I can claim to represent what they think with bona fides

because I can, as many can, predict what they will do. And also, in my case, because I scan their stuff. (BTW Everytown had pretty weak mojo until the cheap, clever VT proof of criminal participation in gun shows)

 

Mr. Ray, do you expect the tennis jocks to save the image of your"modern sporting rifles"?

Just what "sport" are you talking about? Because those guns look like people shooters. Like battle weapons, in fact.

In the newspapers, sure enough, they pan out as people shooters.

Cops began to need them because lowlifes and decent drinkers had them.

VERY poor image. So scary they are chosen by bad guys for massacres so then, going far beyond appearance, scare good guys...again.

 

AW's do not cast a healthy projection. They have baggage in genetic links to M-16's.

The broad brush? Overall, to us, it appears that an imbalanced-looking weapons industry is promoting AW's, while loudly encroaching on areas which don't need them (and don't want them or other guns either). Worse, the very crowd (broad brush, again, yes) who want assault weapons are loudly opposed to effective controls.

 

To cry "confiscation" is a cheap trick, because it's not what you say (like Jeffie's choirbor solos), it's what you do we are watching.

If you are such swell guys, we'll know, because you'll clip LaPierre's plumage, and stand for a credible profile supporting real gun safety.

 

We don't see that, so for that and other reasons well we bash your AW's. For starters, depending, possibly extending to challenging the second's "core lack of values." Your best defense is good gun behavior, in other words, you are sinking, AW end first.

 

Again, if Metcalf and moderates had a voice and a plan, I suppose we would look at it, gratefully, while feeling less need for guns to just go away.

 

 

 

 

.

Koreshs%20machine%20guns_zpscwuvenzt.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - why do you think that YOU get to frame the discussion? Nobody cares what you "feel" - you want a change, demonstrate how that change is worth considering, what the goal of that change is, and how your approach is the best way to get there. Since you've been "contributing" here, you haven't: You simply want your feelings on this topic to be accepted, and it seems to grate terribly on your nerves that others don't agree.

 

TFB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Jocals defense here, CT Congresswoman, Elizabeth Esty, in defending her recently proposed gun law, explained that something like 11 people escaped potential slaughter at the Newtown school shooting when the shooter stopped to reload. She does have a point, I think?

 

However, the real issue we as a nation are not facing is mental illness.

 

Who waits for a reloading interval? Unarmed people.

 

Using Newtown as an example is odd. A mean-looking rifle was used and those (and yours) have a reloading interval.

 

Her point seems to be that we should all give up having ordinary magazines like your 20 round one because that way we'll eliminate the vanishingly few weapons that are used in these sorts of shootings from circulation. We won't. "Scores of thousands" are sure to be missed.

 

Beyond CT, I don't want an America where we are no longer free to buy a rifle like the Mini 14 or AR or AK variants, complete with their standard magazines. They seem like exactly the kinds of guns that should be protected by the second amendment to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In Jocals defense here, CT Congresswoman, Elizabeth Esty, in defending her recently proposed gun law, explained that something like 11 people escaped potential slaughter at the Newtown school shooting when the shooter stopped to reload. She does have a point, I think?

 

However, the real issue we as a nation are not facing is mental illness.

 

Who waits for a reloading interval? Unarmed people.

 

Using Newtown as an example is odd. A mean-looking rifle was used and those (and yours) have a reloading interval.

 

Her point seems to be that we should all give up having ordinary magazines like your 20 round one because that way we'll eliminate the vanishingly few weapons that are used in these sorts of shootings from circulation. We won't. "Scores of thousands" are sure to be missed.

 

Beyond CT, I don't want an America where we are no longer free to buy a rifle like the Mini 14 or AR or AK variants, complete with their standard magazines. They seem like exactly the kinds of guns that should be protected by the second amendment to me.

 

Any metrics available that compare how long it takes to reload a 6-shot revolver /vs/ a mag swap in a rifle/semi-auto pistol? Guys I've watched appear just as quick w/the wheel gun as the guys doing mag swaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - why do you think that YOU get to frame the discussion? Nobody cares what you "feel" - you want a change, demonstrate how that change is worth considering, what the goal of that change is, and how your approach is the best way to get there. Since you've been "contributing" here, you haven't: You simply want your feelings on this topic to be accepted, and it seems to grate terribly on your nerves that others don't agree.

 

TFB.

 

I don't come here because you guys agree with me.

And what makes me free is that I care not for popularity, at least to a degree.

I'm here more because I get the impression you need to hear about certain angles of this, major ones you are avoiding.

To shoot at gun bullshit Guy.

 

It's classic Anarchy.

 

Cultishly, evidently none of you is big enough to cave on the research ban denial.

And Tom Ray is dodgy about what is important, starting with his vaporous DGU figures.

Takes 5 mos to pin Jef down on two well-sourced, basic facts.

Boothy the FFL with blood lost flowing through his keyboard...all the good things.

 

I am ready to present 25 Questions for Tom Ray, on a dedicated thread to focus on what he has to say, when both of us are not bouncing around.

The format should give continuity to the presentations.

Tom, ok by me for you to screen the q's beforehand by pm or openly. No bombshells were added, just pertinent topics to not avoid, basically.

 

I mean this is no blindside weasel effort, as suggested by HJ IIRC. This cool discussion is what triggered it:Two gun-loving scientists began to study the US gun problem. After one year of seeing the picture, they admitted they became advocates for gun safety.

 

They are writing for significant media as Armed With Reason. I welcome them.

They have the OP in Sean's Myth Behind SD thread.

They join Tom Diaz and Mike the Gun guy (and myself) and as adamant gunowner voices for better gun safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In Jocals defense here, CT Congresswoman, Elizabeth Esty, in defending her recently proposed gun law, explained that something like 11 people escaped potential slaughter at the Newtown school shooting when the shooter stopped to reload. She does have a point, I think?

 

However, the real issue we as a nation are not facing is mental illness.

 

Who waits for a reloading interval? Unarmed people.

 

Using Newtown as an example is odd. A mean-looking rifle was used and those (and yours) have a reloading interval.

 

Her point seems to be that we should all give up having ordinary magazines like your 20 round one because that way we'll eliminate the vanishingly few weapons that are used in these sorts of shootings from circulation. We won't. "Scores of thousands" are sure to be missed.

 

Beyond CT, I don't want an America where we are no longer free to buy a rifle like the Mini 14 or AR or AK variants, complete with their standard magazines. They seem like exactly the kinds of guns that should be protected by the second amendment to me.

 

We may have been here before, Tom. I think this is from Stevens great Heller dissent. Similar language is found IN Heller IIRC.

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoCal - why do you think that YOU get to frame the discussion?

 

I don't. However, I've introduced some damn good questions, and substantive content, however unwelcome.

It's not very responsible to ignore such a body of work in this situation IMO, but go for it.

Nobody cares what you "feel"

Okay by me, but address the problem, okay?

- you want a change, demonstrate how that change is worth considering, what the goal of that change is, and how your approach is the best way to get there.

Ideally, you are correct Guy. I tried it; Boothy pissed all over me with Unicorn-based bullying. Seriously. Pissed me off in 2012 but did not deter me. I recognized a bully who could go nowhere.

Since you've been "contributing" here, you haven't: You simply want your feelings on this topic to be accepted, and it seems to grate terribly on your nerves that others don't agree.

 

TFB.

Nope. I am pointing out what you guys need to ignore, I guess. Poking at a cult on Sailing Anarchy, one which deals in fibs for a good reason: stats, studies, logic,desired social effects, and the track record do not support your guns IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, I too would like to know why BBS is "marginal". Although I don't think there is a chance in hell of getting a straight answer out of "tapdancing we don use others' real names on this forum".

 

(Jeffie. No offense, no biggie, but your post was reported for terms of use violation. See the recent sticky.)

 

Good, I'm glad you reported me. But since you don't even seem to know what the recent sticky post actually said, I took the liberty of finding it for you so you can actually refresh yourself on what it actually said:

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159969&hl=knock

 

 

Unless a member has their real name in their member handle, they have their real name in their profile somewhere, or they've signed their real name in a post - DO NOT, even casually use their name. Even first name.

And I don't care if its been done in the past and the first name is out there - the practice of "dropping" someone's name (first, last, initials, whatever) into a post unless it meets the criteria above stops NOW!

 

Since you yourself posted your own name here, sucks to be you. Now, out of courtesy - I will refrain from using your name since you asked nicely - although I note that you continually use mine when it is not part of my handle at the moment. Courtesy is a two-way street, n'est ce pas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are agents in gun incidents. Expect the scale of confiscation probability to reflect the most dangerous guns.

 

And by "most dangerous" you of course mean handguns, right? Since they are used in 75% of all gun crime while AWs are used in something like < 1-2%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns first, then knives, then self-driven cars, because we all know that we can't expect and enforce a standard of behavior from everyone. The confiscatory approach tosolving the problem of violence,without first addressing the root causes of that undesirable behavior, simply never ends.

 

Prohibition and confiscation has worked SO WELL with drugs and alcohol in the past. Gotta ride the wave of success......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In Jocals defense here, CT Congresswoman, Elizabeth Esty, in defending her recently proposed gun law, explained that something like 11 people escaped potential slaughter at the Newtown school shooting when the shooter stopped to reload. She does have a point, I think?

 

However, the real issue we as a nation are not facing is mental illness.

 

Who waits for a reloading interval? Unarmed people.

 

Using Newtown as an example is odd. A mean-looking rifle was used and those (and yours) have a reloading interval.

 

Her point seems to be that we should all give up having ordinary magazines like your 20 round one because that way we'll eliminate the vanishingly few weapons that are used in these sorts of shootings from circulation. We won't. "Scores of thousands" are sure to be missed.

 

Beyond CT, I don't want an America where we are no longer free to buy a rifle like the Mini 14 or AR or AK variants, complete with their standard magazines. They seem like exactly the kinds of guns that should be protected by the second amendment to me.

 

We may have been here before, Tom. I think this is from Stevens great Heller dissent. Similar language is found IN Heller IIRC.

>It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:

 

 

The fact that the second amendment is not unlimited does not mean any and all limits are appropriate.

 

You seem to feel that it doesn't protect handguns nor mean-looking rifles. I think those are the kinds of weapons it should protect.

 

You seem to feel that it doesn't apply outside the home. I think we had outdoor militias.

 

Feel free to post your long list of questions again. Once again, I will transplant them to the existing threads about the various topics and respond. But I'm not sure what the point would be, since you didn't reply last time I did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the second amendment is not unlimited does not mean any and all limits are appropriate.

Of course. Which suggests "limits" somewhere in between no guns for anyone, and extreme guns for all.

 

You seem to feel that it doesn't protect handguns nor mean-looking rifles. I think those are the kinds of weapons it should protect.

At this point, you appear to jump straight to all AW's and all handguns for all, without risk definition of "all".

 

You seem to feel that it doesn't apply outside the home. I think we had outdoor militias.

Whoosh! We zip right back to third grade...

You rely on this petty detail quite a bit.

The gun rights of the militia may have applied only when on militia duty.

Which is not 24-7-365 every year.

 

Your "outdoor" militia gag is far from profound. It sits next to "guns don't kill people" in wisdom content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom Ray, on 09 Feb 2015 - 21:17, said:

Feel free to post your long list of questions again. Once again, I will transplant them to the existing threads about the various topics and respond. Thanks. But I'm not sure what the point would be, since you didn't reply last time I did that.

Tom, I need any link to answers to the two longer sets of questions.

Sorry. Lots of threads. Lots of pages.

At times, frankly, I get disgusted with stuff, the runarounds, and just don't get back to some forums.

I only found answers to the four of five q's (with one dodge, on research blockage denial).

The point would be to get to focus an intelligent discussion in one thread. To actually track the topics.

As stated elsewhere, I suspect your answers-with-answers MO is masking the change-of-subjects mechanism to keep you in familiar territory.

Your emphasis sounds okay, until there are gaps in how you lay out your social vision.

In John LeCarre's spy writing one deals with trained deceivers. In about eight novels over thirty years, the chubby spy-manager George Smiley pondered a lot on questions that were NOT asked in interrogations, and on information which was avoided in debriefings. I think of Smiley's bit quite a lot in dealing with you, Tom. IMO social desirability gaps show in what you are avoiding.

Want to screen 27q's by PM? Or I can just put them on a new thread 25 Q's for Pro-Gun Hotshot Tom Ray

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=153191&page=2#entry4839600>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You seem to feel that it doesn't apply outside the home. I think we had outdoor militias.

Whoosh! We zip right back to third grade...

You rely on this petty detail quite a bit.

The gun rights of the militia may have applied only when on militia duty.

Which is not 24-7-365 every year.

 

Your "outdoor" militia gag is far from profound. It sits next to "guns don't kill people" in wisdom content.

 

Heck, why stop at that? The rights may have only applied to crudely implemented slingshots or to throwing rocks. It may have only applied to, quite literally, arms. Meaning that the right only says that active members of the national guard have a right to not have their arms amputated while on duty. It could really mean anything we want it to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is where I laugh at people who try to use the militia argument as a means of saying the 2nd Am doesn't apply to individuals.

 

If we are only supposed to have guns as part of a militia and militias don't exist 24/7/365 - then why even have a 2nd Am in the first place? "Arms" would be kept at Armories and then issued when the militia was activated. In that scenario - why even write that the right for the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? If you have your arms stored at an armory, you are definitely not "keeping" them. And ostensibly the armory would be controlled by the state - so the entire point of the 2nd would be moot if the gov't controlled the arms. Why would the 2nd give the right for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms when the gov't would be the one that is keeping and bearing the arms?

 

Its makes no sense. Its totally illogical to even go down that path. But then again, we ARE talking about jocal....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

At this point, you appear to jump straight to all AW's and all handguns for all, without risk definition of "all".

 

You seem to feel that it doesn't apply outside the home. I think we had outdoor militias.

Whoosh! We zip right back to third grade...

You rely on this petty detail quite a bit.

The gun rights of the militia may have applied only when on militia duty.

Which is not 24-7-365 every year.

 

Your "outdoor" militia gag is far from profound. It sits next to "guns don't kill people" in wisdom content.

 

 

The fact that guns are protected by the second amendment doesn't mean they are available to all, nor should it mean that. I never said such a thing. It would mean, to name one absurd example, that prisoners have a right to have guns in prison. I don't believe that and am pretty astonished that you think I would.

 

Whether or not the second amendment applies outside the home is not a petty detail.

 

But if we take the Brady Center view that the second amendment applies only in the home and combine it with your view that the militia have rights only when on duty, what do we have? Indoor militias. The fact that this is historically ridiculous doesn't stop you and the Brady Center from promoting this idea and certainly won't stop me from mocking it.

 

When Paul Revere took his famous ride, I don't think he was warning colonists to go to the British government and ask for some guns. He was warning them to get their guns. As the Miller decision says of militia members, "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. The second amendment was intended to protect our right to appear bearing arms supplied by ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom Ray, on 09 Feb 2015 - 21:17, said:

Feel free to post your long list of questions again. Once again, I will transplant them to the existing threads about the various topics and respond. Thanks. But I'm not sure what the point would be, since you didn't reply last time I did that.

Tom, I need any link to answers to the two longer sets of questions.

Sorry. Lots of threads. Lots of pages.

At times, frankly, I get disgusted with stuff, the runarounds, and just don't get back to some forums.

I only found answers to the four of five q's (with one dodge, on research blockage denial).

The point would be to get to focus an intelligent discussion in one thread. To actually track the topics.

As stated elsewhere, I suspect your answers-with-answers MO is masking the change-of-subjects mechanism to keep you in familiar territory.

Your emphasis sounds okay, until there are gaps in how you lay out your social vision.

In John LeCarre's spy writing one deals with trained deceivers. In about eight novels over thirty years, the chubby spy-manager George Smiley pondered a lot on questions that were NOT asked in interrogations, and on information which was avoided in debriefings. I think of Smiley's bit quite a lot in dealing with you, Tom. IMO social desirability gaps show in what you are avoiding.

Want to screen 27q's by PM? Or I can just put them on a new thread 25 Q's for Pro-Gun Hotshot Tom Ray

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=153191&page=2#entry4839600>

 

 

If you really feel the need for yet another gun thread, go ahead.

 

If you ask questions about whether the second amendment applies in the home, I'm likely to answer them in this thread.

 

If you ask questions about whether we have second amendment rights, I'm likely to answer them here or here.

 

If you ask questions about whether we should have to prove a need before having those rights, I'm likely to answer them here.

 

I could go on, but you get the idea. It seems to me that we have a thread dedicated to every important 2A topic. Ask relevant questions in the appropriate threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we can get scot or BJ to set us up a "2nd Amendment Anarchy" subforum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tom Ray, on 09 Feb 2015 - 21:17, said:

Feel free to post your long list of questions again. Once again, I will transplant them to the existing threads about the various topics and respond. Thanks. But I'm not sure what the point would be, since you didn't reply last time I did that. Linky?

Tom, I need any link to answers to the two longer sets of questions.

Sorry. Lots of threads. Lots of pages.

Want to screen 27q's by PM? Or I can just put them on a new thread 25 Q's for Pro-Gun Hotshot Tom Ray

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=153191&page=2#entry4839600>

 

 

If you really feel the need for yet another gun thread, go ahead.

 

If you ask questions about whether the second amendment applies in the home, I'm likely to answer them in this thread.

 

If you ask questions about whether we have second amendment rights, I'm likely to answer them here or here.

 

If you ask questions about whether we should have to prove a need before having those rights, I'm likely to answer them here.

 

I could go on, but you get the idea. It seems to me that we have a thread dedicated to every important 2A topic. Ask relevant questions in the appropriate threads.

 

I have filed this organized summary. Thanks for the layout.

 

It was filed under "Tom's Moves." Once again, you just steered the conversation to your topics, and, obviously, to your bag of tricks.

This may be about what your social vision is avoiding, or may avoid, in a contained format.

 

Again: if you answered more than 4Q's in one sitting, where is that please?

I'll include those answers, with follow-ups, to present our discussion as current.

As my Q's became more organized (and by that I mean less inflamatory), the numbers changed.

Your answers need to be placed in the same topic question elsewhere.

 

For an overview, Tom, bouncing between threads is not a plus.

(And yes we both have done it to avoid stuff.)

"Another gun thread"? Are you kidding? Unless you go to evasion on steroids, how could it not be a classic?

If you have pilers-on or hangers on, bring those fools, Tom, but have them speak well.

Show me the full power of your choir.

 

This is not to be just some battle of link collections, mate. It's about you answering questions directly, in a contained format.

If your links lead to on-point discussions or positions, fair enough, but throwing around twenty page links generically is to be discouraged.

Or entering the cover to a 121 page report as a POV? Nope. We pull up the words of our actual quotes. Agreed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At this point, you appear to jump straight to all AW's and all handguns for all, without risk definition of "all".

 

You seem to feel that it doesn't apply outside the home. I think we had outdoor militias.

Whoosh! We zip right back to third grade...

You rely on this petty detail quite a bit.

The gun rights of the militia may have applied only when on militia duty.

Which is not 24-7-365 every year.

 

Your "outdoor" militia gag is far from profound. It sits next to "guns don't kill people" in wisdom content.

 

 

The fact that guns are protected by the second amendment doesn't mean they are available to all, nor should it mean that. I never said such a thing. It would mean, to name one absurd example, that prisoners have a right to have guns in prison. I don't believe that and am pretty astonished that you think I would. You are off to a bad start. With a very lame straw man, too. Are you really the best spoken pro-rights guy on this forum?

The topic sir, is where to draw the line on who does not get what gun. Let's try to dial that. Which, basically, is the matter of the thread topic.

 

It is what you are avoiding. You just clipped it out. It's the heart of this matter', Tom.

 

Tom Ray, on 11 Feb 2015 - 01:28 AM, said:

snapback.png

The fact that the second amendment is not unlimited does not mean any and all limits are appropriate.

Of course. Which suggests "limits" somewhere in between no guns for anyone, and extreme guns for all.

 

Whether or not the second amendment applies outside the home is not a petty detail. Whether the militia is confined to the indoors is a petty detail. It's in your bag of tricks, right on top. Did I really just have to type about "indoor militias"?

 

But if we take the Brady Center view that the second amendment applies only in the home and combine it with your view that the militia have rights only when on duty, what do we have? Indoor militias. In two different time frames.The fact that this is historically ridiculous doesn't stop you and the Brady Center from promoting this idea Except that we don't promote your indoor militia meltdown, Mr Ray. In fact, it's quite hard to take it seriously.They are your fave straw man, another silly tangent to mask the cost of your gun-obsessed social proposals and certainly won't stop me from mocking it.

 

When Paul Revere took his famous ride, I don't think he was warning colonists to go to the British government and ask for some guns. He was warning them to get their guns. As the Miller decision says of militia members, "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. The second amendment was intended to protect our right to appear bearing arms supplied by ourselves.

Tom, your situation and Paul Revere have little in common, except in your patriotic fantasies. Get a life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we can get scot or BJ to set us up a "2nd Amendment Anarchy" subforum.

You've had one for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhhhhh.......

 

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by jocal505. View it anyway?

 

Now this bit is quite funny, at least for me.

 

The SA Gun Club comes here to be ignorant together about parts of the gun culture issues.

And I come here to give you plenty of evidence-based stuff to ignore.

We have an arrangement.

 

 

******************************

 

 

Meanwhile, the integrity of the SA Gun Club is compromised,

and even the definitive candor of Sailing Anarchy culture is compromised,

as the choir is mute about an unsourced lie on our boards.

(I refer to the acceptance of the repeated denial of gun research blockage here,

coming from a revered, libertarian-spouting member of our community.)

 

Not one member dares to defy this cult doctrine today, 2-12-2015?

 

To be continued. Because that running lie, like Tom's violence-to gun violence comps, cannot face solid sources, ever.

 

The SA Gun Club, and/or The Badgeless Dodger, must show some flex or lose cred, it appears.

Just don't say you're not contributing to this problem if fibs are needed as tools of choice.

 

fingersinearsgunresearchbandoesntexist_z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is where I laugh at people who try to use the militia argument as a means of saying the 2nd Am doesn't apply to individuals. Mon ami, the words of the real second amendment mention militia right up front, and they mention individual not at all. I just gotta go with that, (not ignore half the amendment as shown in granite at the NRA HQ, and as shown in Scalia's mind. Scalia's reading material had not been peer-reviewed!)

 

If we are only supposed to have guns as part of a militia and militias don't exist 24/7/365 - then why even have a 2nd Am in the first place? "Arms" would be kept at Armories and then issued when the militia was activated. In that scenario - why even write that the right for the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? If you have your arms stored at an armory, you are definitely not "keeping" them. And ostensibly the armory would be controlled by the state - so the entire point of the 2nd would be moot if the gov't controlled the arms. Why would the 2nd give the right for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms when the gov't would be the one that is keeping and bearing the arms?

 

Its makes no sense. Its totally illogical to even go down that path. But then again, we ARE talking about jocal....

Jeff, you take this train of thought to somehow torture it into too many guns in a skitzy society. You get the lofty-sounding first part, but do not collect the damage it generates.

 

I lived on the US east coast for three years. Their families still felt pride for volunteer militia four generations later, and not all families could claim it. It may depend on the timeframe, but I thought they related that it was pretty formal.

 

The east coast volunteer service only became a point of family pride because volunteer service was a pain, and took huge family commitment. I'm not sure how having been summoned to active duty or training vs. being on standby worked (and I don't give a hoot where their guns were kept, really). But I heard they went outdoors OMG.

 

In the PNW 1850's, our native fighter militias had short enlistments with 3 month or 6-month timeframes, with signatures, an oath, furlough permissions at times, and release dates unrelated to one's age. Arms were handed to them. The guns went home, butwere returned at the end of one's commission, I think. The Army Commander here loathed volunteer forces...but only after he had won the significant battles in the north of the Mexicant American War by organizing and commanding volunteers.

(Source: Zachary Taylor, who was POTUS 2 years later.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhhhhh.......

 

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by [/size]jocal505. [/size]View it anyway?

 

How do I do this too? I've never even seen nor used tbe ignore button before. But today is the day to give it a try. 'Cuz i just can't take this girl's mindless shit any more......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ahhhhhhh.......

 

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by [/size]jocal505. [/size]View it anyway?

 

How do I do this too? I've never even seen nor used tbe ignore button before. But today is the day to give it a try. 'Cuz i just can't take this girl's mindless shit any more......

 

 

Click on your name up at the top nav bar, then click on "manage ignore preferences". From there you can add dingleberries to your list of folks whose shit is not worth reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that was just too fuking easy. Even managed to do it on my phone whilst stuck in So Kali traffic.

 

Muchisimas gracias, Amigito. ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that was just too fuking easy. Even managed to do it on my phone whilst stuck in So Kali traffic.

 

Muchisimas gracias, Amigito. ....

 

day knotta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

But if we take the Brady Center view that the second amendment applies only in the home and combine it with your view that the militia have rights only when on duty, what do we have? Indoor militias. The fact that this is historically ridiculous doesn't stop you and the Brady Center from promoting this idea

 

Except that we don't promote your indoor militia meltdown, Mr Ray. In fact, it's quite hard to take it seriously.They are your fave straw man, another silly tangent to mask the cost of your gun-obsessed social proposals

 

The evidence that Handgun Control Inc The Brady Center promotes indoor militias is in the appropriate thread. You can deny it but it won't go away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...

But if we take the Brady Center view that the second amendment applies only in the home and combine it with your view that the militia have rights only when on duty, what do we have? Indoor militias. The fact that this is historically ridiculous doesn't stop you and the Brady Center from promoting this idea

 

Except that we don't promote your indoor militia meltdown, Mr Ray. In fact, it's quite hard to take it seriously.They are your fave straw man, another silly tangent to mask the cost of your gun-obsessed social proposals

 

The evidence that Handgun Control Inc The Brady Center promotes indoor militias is in the appropriate thread. You can deny it but it won't go away.

 

 

 

You gun simpletons break these subjects down the dumbest possible common denominator, where your elk can win the argument every time.

The form of argument being employed may be called reductio ad absurdam. The Cuntfinder's favorite.

Thank you, Tom, for this invitation to debate the topic of indoor militias. I don't deny that such a silly discussion exists, I just decline to participate in it. I am embarrassed to be typing the words, Tom.

 

I'm not here to discuss indoor militias. (Or airsoft gun policy travesty. Or if a gun's danger comps with a English Muffin's danger. Or to debate whether guns are safe, since all inanimate objects are safe.)

 

Instead, we have salient matters to discuss. ("Indoor militias", or course, is a dodging mechanism.) What you are avoiding is that in the days of the founding fathers loaded guns were banned in the towns, houses, and in rural taverns. That all three cities of the day (Philadelphia, New York, and Boston) had accepted modest gun controls without a trace of a written uproar.

 

 

 

TomRayGate%20three%20dollar%20bill_zpsno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colonial Gun Control

 

Lots of laws mandating gun ownership, none prohibiting it.

 

Why?

 

Protection.

 

Uhhh... for some.

 

This is your historian? With a research business card which reads "paid by the NRA"?

Tom, your link is authored by David Kopel, the kook who is so unhinged about Michael Moore.

David Kopel is the Research Director at the NRA-funded libertarian think tank Independence Institute and a frequent cover story contributor to the NRA's magazine America's 1st Freedom. In a 2013 cover story, Kopel advanced the conspiracy theory that the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty will be used by "the minions of tyrannical and thieving governments" to achieve "total disarmament of freedom-loving people all over the world."

 

In another instance of exaggerated rhetoric, Kopel compared a United Nations event that melted small arms used in war to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels order that books authored by Jews be publicly burned, and asked, "How long until a U.N.-declared official day of hate is celebrated with governments actually killing people?"

 

He was a prime source for UN Gun Control conspiracy theory.

 

Kopel also wrote jaded history for Ashcroft; his fellow scholar on that gig was was Mary Kaaren Jolly, once Chief Counsel for the NRA. The NRA paid for that work, too.

Kopel's group was so breathless with their fabrication of individual rights, that Ashcroft announced it as a new discovery.

Later, Gottlieb changed the scholarship claim: the same discovery became a consistently held belief for 200 years, which had been somehow forgotten by real historians. YCMTSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kopel is right that the UN Small Arms Treaty should be of concern to end users. I have pointed this out before.

 

 

 

What are your thoughts on what interest the individual American gun rights supports has in opposing the UN Small Arms Treaty?

My thoughts as an "end user" are that our government can fuck off if they want to keep "national records as appropriate" on guns that I own, and the UN can most definitely fuck off for ten solid years if they want to see such records.

 

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/docs/Presidents_Non_Paper_of_22_March_2013_(ATT_Final_Conference).pdf

Article 11
Record keeping
1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and
regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the
conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).
2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms that are
transferred to its territory as the final destination or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction.
3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,
model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under
Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s),
importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s) and end users, as appropriate.
4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years.

 

 

 

 

I know you won't look at sources with which you disagree and I'm not going to try to convince you that looking at all sources is a wiser course of action. Enjoy your bliss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites