Sign in to follow this  
billy backstay

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

Recommended Posts

I like my rights - all of them. You have an irrational fear and you use twisted data and rhetoric to try and force your fear upon others. Welcome to ignore, you ignorant, close-minded, hysterical jackass. You're free to say anything you want, I'll gladly defend that, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to your drivel.

 

My fear is rational, in that I have been in the proximity of too many flying bullets.

 

You want I should dodge bullets better?

~2002. I saw muzzle flashes from my front porch, coming from a party. About four shots were fired. The SWAT team sorted that.

~2005. Next-door neighbor kids handling a gun had it go off. It passed through a car window in two places, showing the bullet passed directly into my front yard... where I had been working at sawhorses that day.

~1988 My watering hole got bullet holes in a stucco wall, I knew the story behind it. An AW was involved, the shooter told me proudly.

~2012. At my gas station, a girl got shot and ran to me for safety. She had green satin panties (and a little puncture in her thigh).

~2012. A local musician guy died in a mass murder at the Cafe Racer. Another friend drove the gunman off, and was left comforting three dying neighbors, in a sea of blood and brains.

~2014 A customer was shot dead in the parking lot of a rural joint we want to gig. My drummer played the lace that same week.

I'm gonna say there are just too many bullets flying around, guys.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=162011&p=4967292

 

If my data are twisted, you need to demonstrate that, paragraph by paragraph. If it is peer-reviewed, it is not likely to be twisted.

I am open minded enough to hear what you have to say. (So far, it lacks content with regard to matters of gun violence.)

I think that the close minded person in this conversation is acting on his own form of ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe. ....just maybe. ....everyone here recognizes that you're just a fuking gun owning/gun fearing/gun hating fuking psycho-fuck.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid of people who believe in the scientifically proven existence of Synthetic Connecticut.

 

They invented a Snythecticut and if you look at it just right, over just the right number of years, and ignore inconvenient states like Massachusetts, you can arrive at a gungrabby conclusion.

 

My fears are rational too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to ignore, you ignorant, close-minded, hysterical jackass.

 

I have read Robert Farago. I have read Clayton Craymer. I have read Larry Pratt and Bob Corbin. I can frame Alan Gottlieb's belief system outside of his CCKRBA attachments. I chased down and studied 48 pages of David Hardy vs PhD historian Saul Cornell. I have followed the Ashcroft/Hardy references to Madison and Hamilton. I have studied the words and ideas of Heller, carefully.

 

What have I missed?

 

I have followed my curiosity to pro-gun websites so often that my cookies give me gun hardware pop-ups. So I'm not sure where you get "closed minded." I think that the closed-minded person in our brief interaction is putting a source of learned information on ignore.

 

You are using the SAF yardstick to assess the quality of another person. Sorry to see that, but so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like my rights - all of them. You have an irrational fear and you use twisted data and rhetoric to try and force your fear upon others. Welcome to ignore, you ignorant, close-minded, hysterical jackass. You're free to say anything you want, I'll gladly defend that, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to your drivel.

 

It certainly didn't take you long to figure out jocal. Love it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

 

Why do you insist on using "retrieve" or "curtail" when you mean confiscate?

 

Instead of gutting the AWB of 1994, I guess you think millions of rifles should have been retrieved confiscated?

 

Is it so hard to use the actual word for what you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Why do you insist on using "retrieve" or "curtail" when you mean confiscate?

 

Instead of gutting the AWB of 1994, I guess you think millions of rifles should have been retrieved confiscated?

 

Is it so hard to use the actual word for what you want?

 

 

I think I'll chose my own words, thank you. (Just as you selectively choose terms like "standard capacity", "semi-automatic", "transfer", and "ban.")

 

Are you avoiding the configuration of BB's ranch rifle? I asked a specific question about handholds on his model (for core purposes of controlling the sustained firepower of .223 battlefield ammo). Does BB's have a hand grip similar to the Wiki pic I provided, or not?

 

How do you like my two-criteria definition of AW (1.LCM and 2.upgraded handgrip)? It's from a straight shooter named Tom Diaz.

 

You are correct that I feel we should have seriously addressed AW's long before the mass shooters' propensity for using them, and before Mrs. Lanza...who was predictable. My own view stops short of full confiscation: special licenses based on high standards could be tried.

 

Your extended BB sob story, the ensuing whinerama, and the ranch rifle crocodile tears are entertaining, BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now I'm to read "seriously addressed" as confiscated. I see. Won't say what you mean.

 

I'm not the one who said that the magazine Billy registered for his Mini 14 ranch rifle was standard. He did. It's in the thread. Look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So now I'm to read "seriously addressed" as confiscated. I see. Won't say what you mean.

You seem compelled to choose words for others to say. What's up with that?

I use words of my own choosing, to convey the meaning I intend.

 

State registration of AW's has held up in higher courts. That's part of "addressing" AW's seriously.

Heller left the door open to further restriction, and restriction of exotic weapons.

Those still-undefined restrictions are other ways of "addressing" AW's (and handguns)

 

You want to play pinhead shock value word games, i.e. "confiscation."

The NRA wants to play word games with Modern "Sporting" Rifle (as if that changes the nature of the weapon).

That won't get 'er done.

 

You are suddenly avoiding Billy Backstay's ranch rifle.

It must have a pistol grip and LCM, effectively defining it as an assault weapon. Your "cosmetics" dodge doesn't work on me.

Any Connecticut assault weapons owners who failed to register them just lost their claim to being law abiders, and their claim to being followers of constitutional order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now I'm to read "seriously addressed" as confiscated. I see. Won't say what you mean.

 

I'm not the one who said that the magazine Billy registered for his Mini 14 ranch rifle was standard. CREDIBILITY ALERT He did. It's in the thread. Look it up.

 

If you're going to reconstruct your creds, you need to keep your story straight between threads.

Heller thread, Post 302:

 

Tom Ray Posted 05 July 2015 - 04:59 PM

His magazine is the registered part. The gun is not scary looking, but does hold the standard capacity (twenty round) magazines.

 

 

Tom Ray: the gun is not scary looking

This photo is from Wiki. BB's particular model has not been confirmed.

aaRugerMini14-F30GB004_zpscqkpxyca.jpg

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.

 

Hi Chesapeake. This is a discussion community.

Tom called me to this thread to discuss confiscation. Confiscation is an 800 pound gorilla in the room.

I took my gloves off, then spoke courageously and directly, for those many you label as hoplophobes.

Your contribution is welcome inn the discussion, BYW, Tom needs some help.

 

 

it seems to grate terribly on your nerves that others don't agree.

 

I'm not coming here for agreement. I am asking for intelligent disagreement...and you have presented none here.

 

I find Tom poorly prepared to discuss real-world, limited, reasonable confiscation.

His control of the slippery slope argument appears to be quite undeveloped.

 

He has offered only tangential arguments...and they don't scrutinize well.

1.Airsoft guns will be confiscated, for sure.

2.That Billy Backstay's character is good, therefore weapons in the hands of lowlifes is okay.

3.That the ranch rifle, shooting 20 rounds of .223 ammo, while featuring double opposing-thumb handgrips, is not characteristic of an AW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tock.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tock.....

 

Hi Rick. Have anything to add to the conversation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hi-capacitymagsspeakspftly_zpsa5644c7d.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, my semi-automatic, firing .223 NATO rounds does NOT have to be registered. Only the Mini-14, with "folding stock" are considered "assault weapons" under this stupid law. Just the High capacity magazine must be registered. Yet, with it's short barrel, the Ranch Rifle is just as deadly in close quarters as the "scary black gun", AR-15, that is the main target of the laws intention.

 

Registering your scary gun makes children safer in school. Why do you hate the children?

 

How about the legislature spend some time and angst on treating mental illness, that is the root of all of these mass shootings?? We used to have medical facilities for treating those with serious mental illness, but they have all been closed and most of them abandoned and fallen into such disrepair as to be unusable for any other purpose. They are "tear-downs", Seaside in Niantic, the huge campus on the river near the casinos.. WTF???

 

Prisons are the new psych hospitals.

 

The way we handle mental illness these days infuriates me. If there is one branch of medicine that I absolutely cannot stand, it's psych. Touchy-feely fuzzy liberal bullshit with a heavy dose of psychotropic pharmacology that we don't even understand mixed in.

 

Death penalty for those who can't think straight and problem solved. Limbaugh radio audience would definitely be included in the sick upstairs crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey jocal, is this an "assault rifle"? It seems to meet at least 2 of your criteria.....

 

600_JPEnt_Chassis_zps674cdce0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey jocal, is this an "assault rifle"? It seems to meet at least 2 of your criteria.....

 

600_JPEnt_Chassis_zps674cdce0.jpg

 

Does it come in Ryobi green? I want a new tool.

 

 

ps: tools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

children-with-guns-parents1.jpg

 

I've been trying to picture what jocal looks like. Now I know.... thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how that pic relates to standard capacity magazines. It's a revolver. It would even be legal under the original NY SAFE Act.

 

Now NY'ers are allowed to carry, but not fully load, standard capacity magazines. Because that's enforceable and makes tons of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The families of the Sandy Hook victims sued Bushmaster and others.

Within one month of the filing, the gun lobby had the case removed to federal court, where FOPA laws would defeat it.

(The logic was that only the gun store that sold the gun was located in CT.)

 

After three months of due consideration, the court case has been returned to the CT state courts.

Bushmaster case transferred back to state court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on that lawsuit

 

Since Bushmaster produced the rifle for sale on the civilian market, the company knew or should have known that selling AR-15s to civilians “posed an unreasonable and egregious risk of physical injury to others” and should have been aware of “the civilian’s population’s poor track record of safely securing weapons,” the complaint read.

 

 

Nationally, handguns are used in more crimes. FL has recently become an exception to that rule. Our record of securing guns is improving and doesn't seem as poor as when many of us were kids and leaving guns in an unlocked closet was common. Anyway, it seems to me that those same arguments apply to weapons like Dick Heller's 9-round .22 revolver.

 

And here

 

The Illinois State Rifle Association, which is challenging the law’s constitutionality, says the weapons are in no way unusual. The AR-15, the group says, is the best-selling rifle type in the nation.

 

Between 1990 and 2012, the group says, more than 5 million AR-type rifles were manufactured for sale in the U.S., and 3.4 million more were imported. As for the magazines, the gun rights group says they are “ubiquitous,” with nearly 75 million of them in possession of gun owners.

 

 

10's of millions of magazines and many owners are not as cooperative as Billy Backstay and won't register them.

 

If you accept the NY State legislature's definition of "high capacity" magazines as those holding more than seven rounds, the number would be in the hundreds of millions.

 

The practical problems exceed those involved in deporting tens of millions of people.

 

Which brings up Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Self-Murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not know that CT had banned a pump-action rifle as an "assault weapon" but they did and the 2nd Circuit just struck down that ban


The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the bans on semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines, but struck down a New York provision regulating load limits and a Connecticut prohibition on the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615.

 

 

No longer too scary for CT citizens:

 

42050.jpg

 

NY's ban on magazines holding more than seven rounds was already struck down but that time around the prohibition on loading more than seven rounds into a magazine that would hold more survived. It did not this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not know that CT had banned a pump-action rifle as an "assault weapon" but they did and the 2nd Circuit just struck down that ban

 

 

 

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the bans on semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines, but struck down a New York provision regulating load limits and a Connecticut prohibition on the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615.

 

 

No longer too scary for CT citizens:

 

42050.jpg

 

NY's ban on magazines holding more than seven rounds was already struck down but that time around the prohibition on loading more than seven rounds into a magazine that would hold more survived. It did not this time.

 

nelson-munt-ftard-bitches.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cry bitches, indeed. Cancel the victory lap.

 

To read the posts of two contributors, Tom Ray and Simple Jeff, one could miss the point here.

Let's go to Reuters, because the facts have a different emphasis. On Monday, the higher courts of the Second Circuit upheld the heart of the restrictive gun laws in NY and CT.

 

Assault weapons are legally banned there now. And LCM's are heavily restricted.

 

U.S. appeals court upholds core of N.Y., Connecticut gun laws

http://news.yahoo.com/u-appeals-court-upholds-core-n-y-connecticut-013414234.html

 

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the bans on semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, actually that ruling by the 2nd Circuit is perfect. Had they struck down the core of those laws - it would have had a much harder time getting to the Supreme Court to be finally decided. And it would have likely delayed it further. As it is, by being struck down - it all but assures its going to the SCOTUS.

 

Maybe we can get the AW and Hi cap mag thing resolved once and for all. I'm having a drink to celebrate as I type.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cry bitches, indeed. Cancel the victory lap.

 

To read the posts of two contributors, Tom Ray and Simple Jeff, one could miss the point here.

Let's go to Reuters, because the facts have a different emphasis. On Monday, the higher courts of the Second Circuit upheld the heart of the restrictive gun laws in NY and CT.

 

Assault weapons are legally banned there now. And LCM's are heavily restricted.

 

U.S. appeals court upholds core of N.Y., Connecticut gun laws

http://news.yahoo.com/u-appeals-court-upholds-core-n-y-connecticut-013414234.html

 

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the bans on semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines...

 

 

Thanks for adding that info! One could have never guessed that "The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the bans on semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines" just by looking at my post that quoted the article I cited as saying, "The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the bans on semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines."

 

Not sure what we'd do without you!

 

But we'd rather!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your propaganda is cute, as you seem to be missing the point.

Legally, that was a bad day for assault weapons, mate.

A bad day for absolutist interpretations of the second amendment, too.

This is Newton AW fallout, sustained in the high courts.

 

I guess I have to talk you through it. Both the NY SAFE Act and the tough post-Newton CT gun laws are considered constitutional.

 

 

 

Summary

The second circuit noted the lack of Supreme Court's lack of action to define gun rights, and decided to set their own standards. They laid out two different steps to be covered: whether such actions burdened the second, and secondly to assess the anticipated problems within the municipalities' stated objections to AW's.

 

They found that the burden of a ban was "a real burden," but that the burden was not such that it denied the armed self-protection assured by the second.

The court noted the frequent use of AW's in mass shootings, and noted their effectiveness in mass shooting situations. They counted 154 shots in five minutes (at Sandy Hook), and stated that as a reason to limit LCM gear.

Their reasoning was that since more capacity meant more casualties, therefore limiting AW's and LCM's was justified.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court proposed this "framework for determining the constitutionality of firearm restrictions."

The analysis consisted of a two-step test that first determines whether the contested gun regulation "burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment," and later weighs whether the restrictions "are substantially related ... to the articulated governmental interest" of preventing gun violence and increasing public safety.

The reasoning:

"When used, these weapons tend to result in more numerous wounds, more serious wounds, and more victims," the court said. "These weapons are disproportionately used in crime, and particularly in criminal mass shootings like the attack in Newtown."

The findings were in agreement with the lower court's finding that "large-capacity magazines result in more shots fired, persons wounded, and wounds per victim than do other gun attacks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "disproportionately used in crime" part is going to be grounds for appeal since it's just not true. Disproportionately used in crimes that are convenient for those pushing for more gun control would be accurate, but that's a different thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court proposed this "framework for determining the constitutionality of firearm restrictions."

The analysis consisted of a two-step test that first determines whether the contested gun regulation "burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment," and later weighs whether the restrictions "are substantially related ... to the articulated governmental interest" of preventing gun violence and increasing public safety.

 

The reasoning:

"When used, these weapons tend to result in more numerous wounds, more serious wounds, and more victims," the court said. "These weapons are disproportionately used in crime, and particularly in criminal mass shootings like the attack in Newtown."

 

 

Tom beat me to it, but again not only is that a baldfaced lie - but just the exact opposite is true. They are used in a tiny percentage of crimes. Less than bricks and bare knuckles and such even.

 

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

From that liberal rag, the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0

 

And more: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/crs-under-2-percent-of-gun-crimes-involve-assault-weapons/article/2516512

 

What do you have to say to say jocal? The SCOTUS is going to shred that 2nd Circuit decision. Its going to be fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judges looked at the evidence, and ruled as they ruled.

They may have been referring to mass murder crimes with AW's.

 

The Supreme Court has declined to expand (or even to define) the gun rights defined in Heller.

There is a very practical (and very deadly) reason why mass shooters prefer assault weapons.

 

We have the courts to defend us against gun extremists such as yourself.The lower courts are doing their jobs.

In the climate of problematic gun danger, the higher courts are more exposed than ever if they continue to support gun extremists.

 

... the percentage of AR-15 rifles amongst all firearms held by the American public (that being about 1%, or 0.01).

Using that statistic, and assuming no bias in selection amongst handguns, rifles and shotguns (all can be used to kill people), the odds of an AR-15 rifle being selected simply by chance at any of these individual events would be about 1 in 100, or 0.01. The odds that an AR-15 would be selected simply by chance at all 4 of these independent events would be 0.01 X 0.01 X 0.01 X 0.01 = 10(-8), or about one chance in a hundred million.

A total of four independent, premeditated and indiscriminate mass shootings occurred in the latter half of 2012. There was no connection between the shooters and the victims, and no reason was established in the selection of victims other than inflicting mass casualties. An AR-15 rifle was the weapon used in all four of these events. The odds of this particular weapon being selected for all four of these independent events simply by chance was estimated to be less than one in a million using two different approaches. The intentional selection of this firearm is additionally supported by the behavior of all four shooters. It is felt that this finding fundamentally changes the assault weapon debate. It is not that this weapon was simply being used at these events, there is little if any doubt that it was being intentionally selected as a weapon of choice in those premeditated indiscriminate mass killings. As this weapon is being actively sought for these events, leaving it unregulated and expanding public availability could only increase the opportunity for its use in future mass shootings of the nature we witnessed in 2012.

http://www.artonissues.com/2013/04/selection-of-the-ar-15-rifle-in-premeditated-indiscriminate-mass-shootings/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volokh on the 2nd Circus decision


Guns that are more accurate and easier to use for “deadly” purposes (whether against home invaders or while hunting) are exactly the guns that may be banned. This is in tension with Heller.


By the 2nd Circuit’s reasoning, inferior guns that are less accurate, less comfortable to use and less useful supposedly enjoy greater constitutional protection. That is a Bizarro Second Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by "Volock," Tom means David Kopel.

Mr. Kopel is to gun scholarship what Clayton Kramer is to American gun history.

 

Here's Kopel's theory about the UN:

NRA Magazine Spins Wild Conspiracy That U.N. Treaty Will "Destroy" Gun Ownership

Tom Ray channels this guy. Here's Kopel on "transfers":

 

To see how the Bloomberg bill makes felons of people who do not sell guns, consider a woman who buys a rifle when she is 25 years old. She keeps the rifle her entire life. Yet over her lifetime, she — like most gun owners — engages in dozens of firearms “transfers.” She brings the unloaded rifle to a friend’s house, for instance, because the friend is thinking of buying a gun and wants to learn more about guns. The friend handles the rifle for a few minutes before handing it back. Another time, the woman lends the gun to her niece, who takes it on a camping trip for the weekend.

Or perhaps the woman is in a same-sex civil union, and she allows her partner to take her gun to a target range one afternoon. Another time, she allows her cousin to borrow the gun for an afternoon of target shooting. If the woman is in the Army Reserve and she is called up for an overseas deployment, she gives the gun to her sister for temporary safekeeping.

One time, she learns that her neighbor is being threatened by an abusive ex-boyfriend, and she lets this woman borrow a gun for several days until she can buy her own gun. And if the woman becomes a firearms-safety instructor, she regularly teaches classes at office parks, in school buildings at nights and on weekends, at gun stores, and so on. Following the standard curriculum of gun-safety classes (such as NRA safety courses), the woman will bring some unloaded guns to the classroom, and under her supervision, students will learn the first steps in how to handle the guns, including how to load and unload them (using dummy ammunition). During the class, the firearms will be “transferred” dozens of times, since students must practice how to hand a gun to someone else safely. As a Boy Scout den mother or 4-H leader, the woman may also transfer her gun to young people dozens of times while instructing them in gun safety.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344763/turning-gun-owners-felons-dave-kopel>

 

 

 

Volokh on the 2nd Circus decision


Guns that are more accurate and easier to use for “deadly” purposes (whether against home invaders or while hunting) are exactly the guns that may be banned. This is in tension with Heller.


By the 2nd Circuit’s reasoning, inferior guns that are less accurate, less comfortable to use and less useful supposedly enjoy greater constitutional protection. That is a Bizarro Second Amendment.

 

 

Your author, whom you did not identify, is David Kopel, a gun industry shill.

 

There is no "tension" in Heller in regards to assault weapons. On the contrary.

Heller okays restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons," and states that future restrictions, beyond Heller itself, will apply.

 

Tom Ray channels this guy at times. Here the type of wisdom David Kopel has to offer:

 

To see how the Bloomberg bill makes felons of people who do not sell guns, consider a woman who buys a rifle when she is 25 years old. She keeps the rifle her entire life. Yet over her lifetime, she — like most gun owners — engages in dozens of firearms “transfers.” She brings the unloaded rifle to a friend’s house, for instance, because the friend is thinking of buying a gun and wants to learn more about guns. The friend handles the rifle for a few minutes before handing it back. Another time, the woman lends the gun to her niece, who takes it on a camping trip for the weekend.

While the woman is out of town on a business trip for two weeks, she gives the gun to her husband or her sister. If the woman lives on a farm, she allows all her relatives to take the rifle into the fields for pest and predator control — and sometimes, when friends are visiting, she takes them to a safe place on the farm where they spend an hour or two target shooting, passing her gun back and forth. At other times, she and her friends go target shooting in open spaces of land owned by the National Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management.

Or perhaps the woman is in a same-sex civil union, and she allows her partner to take her gun to a target range one afternoon. Another time, she allows her cousin to borrow the gun for an afternoon of target shooting. If the woman is in the Army Reserve and she is called up for an overseas deployment, she gives the gun to her sister for temporary safekeeping.

One time, she learns that her neighbor is being threatened by an abusive ex-boyfriend, and she lets this woman borrow a gun for several days until she can buy her own gun. And if the woman becomes a firearms-safety instructor, she regularly teaches classes at office parks, in school buildings at nights and on weekends, at gun stores, and so on. Following the standard curriculum of gun-safety classes (such as NRA safety courses), the woman will bring some unloaded guns to the classroom, and under her supervision, students will learn the first steps in how to handle the guns, including how to load and unload them (using dummy ammunition). During the class, the firearms will be “transferred” dozens of times, since students must practice how to hand a gun to someone else safely. As a Boy Scout den mother or 4-H leader, the woman may also transfer her gun to young people dozens of times while instructing them in gun safety.

Under S. 649, every one of the above activities would be a federal felony...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344763/turning-gun-owners-felons-dave-kopel>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, joke-al, there is nothing whatsoever "unusual" about an AR-15. It is as common and ubiquitous as the voices in your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not unusual in a battlefield setting. But in a civilized nation, they stick out like a sore thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. 'Cuz you can't even go out to your mail box without seeing hundreds of them being carried by gunnies.

 

Fuking idiot....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not unusual in a battlefield setting. But in a civilized nation, they stick out like a sore thumb.

 

 

Stick out like sore thumbs because they are the epitome of the "SCARY BLACK RIFLE". But a wood stock, Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, that is legal in CT, (AR-15 is not), looks like a 22 caliber by comparison unless you have the large capacity magazine, like the one I have a license for. Both of them fire semi-auto and are both just as dangerous. So it is stupid to allow one and not the other. OTOH, if you change the 14 to a folding stock, then it is illegal. Makes no sense whatsoever..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bitch. I hope your improvements to these laws get worked in. And that all the eminent.confiscation of airsoft guns is abandoned.

 

What the judge in this case said made no sense was any need for LCM's in home defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bitch. I hope your improvements to these laws get worked in. And that all the eminent.confiscation of airsoft guns is abandoned.

 

What the judge in this case said made no sense was any need for LCM's in home defense.

 

Baby penguins in the Antarctic weep at your continued stupidity. We've been over this time and time again. The RKBA as enumerated in the 2nd Am and upheld by SCOTUS decisions do not limit that right to "home defense". The two main tenets of the right to have guns is for the "common defense" as well as "self defense". There are many scenarios where "self-defense" can happen both in and out of the home. And both in and out of the home, there are legitimate needs for LCMs - or rather factually - normal capacity mags. If LCMs were not important tools in the arsenal - then explain why police use them? If its good enough for their self-defense needs, its good enough for mine.

 

Furthermore, the even better reason for normal capacity magazines that can carry more than 2 rounds is for the "common defense". For the very reason that the military might find it useful to carry arms with more than 2 rounds before needed to be reloaded - it makes sense that the "militia" if called upon might want similar weapons and capability.

 

This is why the 2nd Circus decision will lose in the SC - because if the standard for the ruling was simply based on "home defense" - it ignores the entire point of why the 2A was written in the first place. It might be a year away or so, but you might want to start to steel yourself for that eventuality now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not unusual in a battlefield setting. But in a civilized nation, they stick out like a sore thumb.

 

Are our police and soldiers the same? Do they operate under the same rules and face the same threats? Do we ask them to do the same jobs? I think the answer is no to all three.

 

This idea that mean looking rifles with standard capacity magazines are so terribly effective for self-defense that they must be banned from civilian applications would seem a lot more convincing if there were no exemptions from the bans for law enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not losing. In fact, the momentum may have changed on the U.S.. In the Democratic debate, nine minutes covered guns in the USA. They were scrapping about who opposes the NRA the most. Bernie Sanders vote in favor of the PLCAA was poignantly challenged.

 

On our forums, the SA Gun Club has been challenged by the insights of ten different posters.

 

The lower courts and the circuit courts are considering the track record of guns, and interpreting Heller, as per the prudence of Justice Kennedy's cautious intentions.

 

Another quality study (Montreax 2015) challenges Tom Ray, and seems to confirm that more guns are causing more crime

 

 

New Study Is Latest to Find That Higher Rates of Gun Ownership Lead to Higher Rates of Violent Crime

Data shows that states with the top rates of gun possession have nearly three times the rate of gun murders compared to states with the fewest guns.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/new-study-is-latest-to-find-that-higher-rates-of-gun-ownership-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-crime/>

 

The latest Pew Research again shows a trend for increasing support of gun restrictions. (The pro-regulation figures spiked after Sandy Hook, diminished significantly, then began a growing trend.)

 

A Dec. 2014 Pew Research poll found, for the first time in more than two decades, there was more support for gun rights than gun control, with 52 percent of respondents saying it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46 percent said it was more important to control gun ownership.

 

As of today, the Pew graph draws an X, with gun support plummeting and support for restrictions soaring, now 48% vs. 50%, respectively.

The SAF and NRA may have been maxed out with voters, too. They apexed. jumped the shark with Manchin-Toomey then faded.

 

There is such a pattern with horriffic shootings that Wayne LaPierre is MIA. He failed to address the Charleston Shootings, and the massacre which followed it.

I'm not sure the SA Gun Club has anything to celebrate at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can look up Mike's number for you if you need it......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They're not unusual in a battlefield setting. But in a civilized nation, they stick out like a sore thumb.

 

Are our police and soldiers the same? Do they operate under the same rules and face the same threats? Do we ask them to do the same jobs? I think the answer is no to all three.

 

This idea that mean looking rifles with standard capacity magazines are so terribly effective for self-defense that they must be banned from civilian applications would seem a lot more convincing if there were no exemptions from the bans for law enforcement.

 

 

That game will come back to haunt you. You formed a precedent with it.

The gun exceptions for LE, once made, an appeal allowed guns for all...in one of the few major cases won by the SAF types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can look up Mike's number for you if you need it......

 

PM me, I've got it.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf you stupid fuk. I'm gonna ask you two very simple, yes or no questions, and if you're honest with your answers then you will show us all here that all of your 'data' is complete and total bullshit. Ready?

 

 

1). Are there less guns in America today than thirty years ago? Or more guns?

 

2). Has the 'gun crime' rate increased in the past thirty years? Or decreased?

 

 

I'll give you ten minutes to answer, starting......now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be fore warned, Folks, but I've a gut feeling that JokeAwf is about to post his longest c&p soon. Can't wait.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf you stupid fuk. I'm gonna ask you two very simple, yes or no questions, and if you're honest with your answers then you will show us all here that all of your 'data' is complete and total bullshit. Ready?

 

 

1). Are there less guns in America today than thirty years ago? Or more guns?

 

2). Has the 'gun crime' rate increased in the past thirty years? Or decreased?

 

 

I'll give you ten minutes to answer, starting......now.

 

Not to pick at nits, but those are not yes or no questions..... just sayin' :D

 

But in any event, I think his 10 min are up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told my Mom that that fifth year of high school she made me take was gonna be a complete waste of time. But did she listen?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.

An Ecologic Study

August 2015

Volume 49, Issue 2, Pages 207–214

Results

Higher levels of firearm ownership were associated with higher levels of firearm assault and firearm robbery. There was also a significant association between firearm ownership and firearm homicide, as well as overall homicide.

Conclusions

The findings do not support the hypothesis that higher population firearm ownership rates reduce firearm-associated criminal perpetration. On the contrary, evidence shows that states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm. Public health stakeholders should consider the outcomes associated with private firearm ownership.

 

Pasted from <http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797%2815%2900072-0/abstract>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can seem Rick, gun crime is up in states with weak gun laws, and down in states with sound gun safety measures.

"Yes or no" formats don't work with complex questions.

 

 

 

You are crimefighters all, but where the gun permits exist, crime tends to not be a factor.

Few gun permits are applied for in high crime areas, just in safer areas occupied by fearful people.

 

 

Even if criminals were responsive to indirect deterrence from concealed carry permit holders (which the evidence shows they aren’t), the areas with the most per capita permits are already low crime areas. This is clearly seen in the Illinois concealed carry data we previously analyzed, which showed permits are concentrated in white, rural areas with low levels of crime. If there are few criminals in an area to deter, indirect deterrence cannot be significantly reducing overall crime rates.

 

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/lower-crime-rates-not-caused-by-concealed-carry/>

 

Guns are not signigicant in reducing crime, but do have measurable negative effects. In high gun areas, one Cook and Ludwig study shows that burglaries increased, because many homes contained guns.

 

The Effects of Gun Prevalence on Burglary: Deterrence vs Inducement

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926>

Mainly, our guns get used on our associates.

Higher Rates of Gun Ownership Lead to Higher Rates of Violent Crime

(...) Undergirding the idea that expanding gun ownership deters and prevents crimes is the belief that the “bad guy with a gun” will usually be a random assailant, someone the would-be victim has never encountered before or does not know personally. But here again the hard numbers are at odds with perceptions. Nearly 70 percent of homicides involve guns, and the majority of all homicide victims know their killers; among female homicide victims, 93 percent are killed by a familiar person.

Earlier research has shown that it’s nonstranger homicide that sees the most increase as gun ownership expands. When a team led by Michael Siegel at Boston University broke down homicides by the victim’s relationship to the killer for a 2014 study, they found that an increase in gun-ownership rates did not produce a statistically significant increase in murders by strangers. But when they looked at victims killed by someone they knew, they found that every 1 percent increase in gun ownership corresponded with a .9 percent increase in murders.

 

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/new-study-is-latest-to-find-that-higher-rates-of-gun-ownership-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-crime/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't fuking MATTER if their 'study' supports it or not! 'Cuz the g-damn answers to my questions are both unequivocally Yes. As in Yes, there are more guns today in American's hands, and Yes, the gun crime rate has decreased.

 

(And here I thought that even YOU could figure that out. Sigh).....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go ahead and present your numbers, and their source.

But after racial tensions, major cities have reported increased gun violence this year.

 

Gun injuries are up. Gun suicides are going up, too.

Gun homicides have settled around 11,500/yr, but be careful getting behind that, it's an international aberration, per capita, for any civilized country.

We are the world leader in gun violence, Rick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1). Even a dipshit like you knows there's hundreds of thousands of more guns in American's hands today than there was 30 years ago. Fucking duh.

 

2). And even a dipshit like you have read and understood the DOJ's and other law enforcement agencies stats stating that 'gun crime' has decreased drastically. Fucking duh II.

 

3). And finally, you're an idiotic fucking troll with absolutely zero value. Bye Felicia, you stupid cunt...,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is Tom Ray, quoting the 2007 Kates and Mauser polemic.

 

 

It isn't a study, since it doesn't offer a single statistical model.

Note: no peer review. The opening statement is untruthful. The report contains lies, from end to end.

My criticism is not on some cherry-picked detail, it covers the entire 64-page essay.

 

 

 

 

They deny the extent of the U.S. gun violence problem, first off. And they simple deny we have a gun supply problem, without offering any evidence.

 

But a graph of the gun violence numbers among their countries shows otherwise. The figures are taken from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime(UNODC), which has spreadsheets for both overall homicide statistics and homicides by firearms.Kates%20and%20Mauser%20graph%20on%20gun%

Kates and Mauser deny we lead the world in gun violence, yet our rates are double the number two nation.

 

Note the spike over Lichtenstein. It was used by Kates and Mauser as a case in point that the low firearm ownership rate there wasn't working.

That spike represents one firearm murder, in 2008, in a country that usually gets none. Their presentation was dishonest, and counterfactual.

 

Here is another look at the study, by the wonks at Armed With Reason.

Harvard Study Embraced by Gun Rights Advocates Is Neither a “Study,” Nor Really “Harvard”

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/harvard-study-false-claims-armed-with-reason/>

And here is David Hemenway's look at it:

 

6. Kates and Mauser see the world as a dichotomous one filled with only bad guys and good guys,

criminals and decent-law-abiding citizens. The criminals are very bad, and the good guys are always

good. In their world they seem to believe the bad guys can always get guns, and the good guys will

always use guns appropriately. The policy conclusions are clear. In a more realistic model, there is a

continuum of people with good and bad behavior, and how they behave depends on their disposition

that day (e.g., are they tired, drunk, afraid) and the situation. In the latter model, the effects of various

policies become an empirical question.

7. Kates and Mauser are often confusing because they are talking about homicide, and then they

present claims about “violence” or “violent crime” (e.g., 653). But most violent crimes have little to do

with guns. Guns primarily make hostile interactions much more lethal.

8. While Kates and Mauser often cite the old Wright studies of criminals, they don’t cite many of the

more interesting findings (e.g., three quarters of felons who fire guns in criminal situations claim to have

had no prior intention of doing so, and about half who fire guns while committing crimes claim to have

done so in self-defense) (Wright, Rossi & Daly 2003).

http://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2013/06/Kates-Mauser.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns, abortion, and "black lives matter". (sorry for the Oxford comma, and lower case on the latter which some might construe as a hate-crime).

 

We have much bigger fish to fry, gentlemen.

 

Advocate changing the Constitution, Jocal, or you are wasting your time and simply pissing into the wind. As a few thousand people die in the short term from "gun violence", and the long term direction of our country suffers from the noise of your cause

 

Same thing to abortion, which legally kills way more than 10 times as many people than guns.

 

Same thing wrt young black men killed by cops.

 

I admit that I am often over the top here on SA, but I am a macro guy looking at the big picture surrounded by single issue asstards like you.

Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What a bitch. I hope your improvements to these laws get worked in. And that all the eminent.confiscation of airsoft guns is abandoned.

 

What the judge in this case said made no sense was any need for LCM's in home defense.

 

Baby penguins in the Antarctic weep at your continued stupidity. We've been over this time and time again. The RKBA as enumerated in the 2nd Am and upheld by SCOTUS decisions do not limit that right to "home defense". The two main tenets of the right to have guns is for the "common defense" as well as "self defense". There are many scenarios where "self-defense" can happen both in and out of the home. And both in and out of the home, there are legitimate needs for LCMs - or rather factually - normal capacity mags. If LCMs were not important tools in the arsenal - then explain why police use them? If its good enough for their (police) self-defense needs, its good enough for mine.

 

Furthermore, the even better reason for normal capacity magazines that can carry more than 2 rounds is for the "common defense". For the very reason that the military might find it useful to carry arms with more than 2 rounds before needed to be reloaded - it makes sense that the "militia" if called upon might want similar weapons and capability.

 

This is why the 2nd Circus decision will lose in the SC - because if the standard for the ruling was simply based on "home defense" - it ignores the entire point of why the 2A was written in the first place. It might be a year away or so, but you might want to start to steel yourself for that eventuality now.

 

 

At this moment, the SC is sitting on this Highland Park beef. Something is going on. They could have accepted ten days ago, and could gave deferred eight days ago.

 

LCM's are wonderful for use at home. Got it.

And I find the militia posturing amusing, in a quaint sort of way.

You guys play it both ways. It's about the "core right" of self defense (which is not mentioned in the second amendment as written) one moment, then it's about sophisticated militia weaponry, to fight tyrants.

 

 

The Second has militia written over the first half of itself, all and thus suggests a collective right.

In action, that militia was used not to fight tyrants, but WAS used generally to control slave uprisings. Unarmed ones.

The militia guns of 1780 promoted tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, Bubba, unless I missed it, you have presented no source that gun violence is going down.

 

Besides, in areas of more gun ownership and weak gun laws, the gun violence is going up.

Here's a recent (Aug. 2015) study that confirms it.

Monuteaux 2015, Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.

 

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797%2815%2900072-0/abstract>

 

 

And I repeat, gun injuries are going up.

 

Yr Tot Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns, abortion, and "black lives matter". (sorry for the Oxford comma, and lower case on the latter which some might construe as a hate-crime).

 

We have much bigger fish to fry, gentlemen.

 

Advocate changing the Constitution, Jocal, or you are wasting your time and simply pissing into the wind. As a few thousand people die in the short term from "gun violence", and the long term direction of our country suffers from the noise of your cause

 

Same thing to abortion, which legally kills way more than 10 times as many people than guns.

 

Same thing wrt young black mHelleren killed by cops.

 

I admit that I am often over the top here on SA, but I am a macro guy looking at the big picture surrounded by single issue asstards like you.

 

Just sayin'.

 

"Change the constitution"? I can buy what the Gouv writes on that one, or...

I would accept an honest interpretation of the second amendment. It was about "a well regulated militia," in black and white. Plus I'd accept an honest application of Heller, with fewer delusions about unlimited gun rights, and the constitution can sit "as is."

 

As stated elsewhere, I wouldn't mind the Second Amendment being amended, but I don't see the constitution being challenged by a bit of gun regulation.

 

If all the gun problems go away, we won't need gun regulation, or amended constitutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Look, Bubba, unless I missed it, you have presented no source that gun violence is going down.

 

Besides, in areas of more gun ownership and weak gun laws, the gun violence is going up.

Here's a recent (Aug. 2015) study that confirms it.

Monuteaux 2015, Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.

 

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797%2815%2900072-0/abstract>

 

 

And I repeat, gun injuries are going up.

 

Yr Tot Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

 

 

Simple concept - without all your BS stats. We live in a violent society.

 

It is not the gun that kills, it is the person pulling the trigger.

 

As soon as you can get your small mind around that simple concept, you might actually be able to do some good.

 

A hammer has a purpose - drive nails. A baseball bat has a purpose and so does a gun

 

You are an enabler, Jocal. You blame the tool and give the killer an out. Wrap your head around that a few times. The gun killed the kids at Sandy Hook? Really? Do you believe that?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shit, Regatta, now you're forcing his hand. Can't wait to see his latest Go-Pro video where he's jumping over cars in South Central.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every 28 hours a cop shoots a black person; time to take the guns away from the cops, I reckon..... But you can't have mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

The Second has militia written over the first half of itself, all and thus suggests a collective right.

...

 

 

Justice Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, dissenting in Heller, opened with this line:

 

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

 

 

Even Lawrence Tribe gave up that "collective right" nonsense quite a while back. Catch up, jocal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there's Papa Tomato, Momma Tomato and Baby Tomato walking along the street. Baby Tomato starts lagging behind, and Papa Tomato starts getting really angry. So, he turns around and squishes Baby Tomato and says, 'Ketchup.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

The Second has militia written over the first half of itself, all and thus suggests a collective right.

...

 

 

Justice Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, dissenting in Heller, opened with this line:

 

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

 

 

Even Lawrence Tribe gave up that "collective right" nonsense quite a while back. Catch up, jocal.

 

 

You can't take away 150 years of interpretation of collective rights with the wave of a libertarian wand.

You can't just dismiss the first half the second amendment, then enforce the other half.

A pattern of gun violence established itself AFTER Heller. The pattern doesn't surprise me, and it shades Heller's individual rights interpretation of the Second.

That interpretation is ill-thought. It was unsupported by real constitutional scholarship and real historians. It was a snow job, and it isn't working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citing the minority in Heller and a liberal, pro-gun control constitutional scholar is not waving a libertarian wand. I think all of those people would be shocked by your ignorance at calling them libertarians.

 

1937 was not 150 years ago. 1857 was a lot closer and we know what the Supreme Court thought of the second amendment at that time.

 

 

Do Black People Have Equal Gun Rights?

 

 

 

Until around 1970, the aims of America’s firearms restrictionists and the aims of America’s racists were practically inextricable. In both the colonial and immediate post-Revolutionary periods, the first laws regulating gun ownership were aimed squarely at blacks and Native Americans. In both the Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies, it was illegal for the colonists to sell guns to natives, while Virginia and Tennessee banned gun ownership by free blacks.

 

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

White Southerners would eventually be forced to accept blacks as their fellow citizens. But old habits died hard. After the Civil War, many Southern states enacted Black Codes to prohibit ownership of guns by blacks. The measures served their purpose. In her remarkable 1892 disquisition on the evils of lynching, the writer Ida B. Wells noted that “the only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.” Wells offered some blunt advice: “a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”

 

At the height of the civil rights movement, black freedom fighters took Wells’s counsel seriously. Although he was denied a concealed-carry permit, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had what his adviser Glenn E. Smiley described as a veritable “arsenal” at home.

 

Far from being a digression from the principle of nonviolence, this willingness to defend oneself was heir to a long, proud tradition. Considering in 1850 what he believed to be the best response to the Fugitive Slave Act, Frederick Douglass proposed: “a good revolver.”

 

Former Chief Justice Taney sure had an interesting view of gun rights.

 

At least he had the good sense to realize that you can't just let black people keep and bear arms wherever they go as if they were white or something.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can't take away 150 years of interpretation of collective rights with the wave of a libertarian wand.

You can't just dismiss the first half the second amendment, then enforce the other half.

A pattern of gun violence established itself AFTER Heller. The pattern doesn't surprise me, and it shades Heller's individual rights interpretation of the Second.

That interpretation is ill-thought. It was unsupported by real constitutional scholarship and real historians. It was a snow job, and it isn't working.

 

 

Using your (anti) logic - you can't take away 150 years of segregation with the wave of a Brown v Board of Education wand, eh jo-jo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom needs MLK as a form of soap, to wash away our real gun history. Guns have historically imposed tyranny in the USA.

 

The racist reasons gun rights were advanced left a trail of antebellum court decisions.

Let's take the disturbing decision in the San Diego Peruta case, and its repercussions. Citing Peruta, Judge Scullin expanded it, while suddenly approving guns even outdoors, into D.C. Those two gun cases are the main legal takeays for the pro-rights crowd. But let's look at guns and racism, and the case law quoted in Peruta.

 

Peruta referenced the Nunn vs. State of Georgia case to show historical authenticity for individual rights. The Peruta case quoted state law in nine sates--but eight were from the deep south.

 

The gun culture of the South was that of a regional minority: in the north, personal weapons were not considered appropriate.

 

 


 

Firearm Regionalism and Public Carry: Placing Southern Antebellum Case Law in Context

25 SEP 2015 Eric M. Ruben & Saul Cornell

First, why did this case law arise in the antebellum South, but not in other areas of the country? And second, did this regional jurisprudence really reflect a national understanding of the Second Amendment’s scope? If Nunn and similar cases were the product of a unique regional culture during a unique period in the nation’s development, quite removed from the Founding era (and the Reconstruction era),11they do not provide a solid foundation for a contemporary interpretation of the Second Amendment.12

In 1880, journalist H.V. Redfield published one of the earliest studies exploring Southern violence and concluded that the South’s murder rate was connected to the prevalence of public carrying of weapons, particularly concealable ones.30 In much of the South, “o fixedly has this deadly custom been engrafted upon society . . . that a very earnest and prolonged effort will be required to efface it.”31 He noted that in New England, however, carrying concealed weapons was uncommon because “[t]he laws forbid it, and public sentiment condemns it so strongly that were the laws silent the habit could not be engrafted upon society.”32

 

Public carry thus was popular in Southern society, but cultural norms were not silent regarding what manner of carrying was honorable. In particular, concealed carry was perceived to give men “secret advantages” and lead to “unmanly assassinations,” while open carry “place[d] men upon an equality” and “incite[d] men to a manly and noble defence of themselves.”33 Some Southern legislatures, accordingly, passed laws penalizing concealed carry, while permitting open carry. Kentucky and Louisiana passed the first such laws in 1813, and other states followed suit.34

 

(…)The distinctive nature of Southern society, including its embrace of slavery and honor, contributed to an aggressive gun culture.38 That culture, in turn, influenced jurists such as Chief Justice Lumpkin, who had considerable success “translating his personal views into law.”39 At minimum, the historical origins of Nunn and similar cases ought to give modern judges serious pause as they consider public carry cases, like Peruta, in the post-Heller era.

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/firearm-regionalism-and-public-carry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Look, Bubba, unless I missed it, you have presented no source that gun violence is going down.

 

Besides, in areas of more gun ownership and weak gun laws, the gun violence is going up.

Here's a recent (Aug. 2015) study that confirms it.

Monuteaux 2015, Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S.

 

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797%2815%2900072-0/abstract>

 

 

And I repeat, gun injuries are going up.

 

Yr Tot Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

 

 

Simple concept - without all your BS stats. We live in a violent society.

 

It is not the gun that kills, it is the person pulling the trigger.

 

As soon as you can get your small mind around that simple concept, you might actually be able to do some good.

 

A hammer has a purpose - drive nails. A baseball bat has a purpose and so does a gun

 

You are an enabler, Jocal. You blame the tool and give the killer an out. Wrap your head around that a few times. The gun killed the kids at Sandy Hook? Really? Do you believe that?

 

We are not a particularly violent country. But our violence ends lethally more than other nations.

If the job is mayhem, we have the right tools for the job. (Graph is based on OECD figures.)assault-deaths-oecd-ts-all_zpsc4ybvwxg.p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How 'bout the Honey badgers vs. the Unicorns?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is some simple shit, Jocal. Call for a Constitutional Convention to challenge the second, but suck dick on the commerce clause.

I would love a convention. The states and people might prosper as a result. Enumerated powers might actually mean something.

Take my neighbor's gun via the law, or just keep posting graphs that show your ownership of a gun doesn't count. Maybe you can have a conversation with my particular friend Billy Backstay.

 

Whatever you do, Jocal, please make sure you post a few weeks of repetitive reading. If I didn't have to scroll for at least two minutes through your crap to get to the idiocy comment, I'd be worried about your health.

 

Edit - Great day on the water. Billy is a cunt-wad.

 

Edit Rendition Two - His wife is very, very sweet.....but Billy is a small dicked bug fucker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit - Great day on the water. Billy is a cunt-wad.

 

Edit Rendition Two - His wife is very, very sweet.....but Billy is a small dicked bug fucker.

 

I take it he beat you on the course....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Edit - Great day on the water. Billy is a cunt-wad.

 

Edit Rendition Two - His wife is very, very sweet.....but Billy is a small dicked bug fucker.

 

I take it he beat you on the course....

 

 

The dickhead Regatta Doge drives a crash/mark boat, he doesn't even race. We got third out of 5 in extremely challenging conditions with 3+ knots of tide and wind going up and down and left and right like yoyos.

 

OTOH, RD is indeed a better than average Bowman, so the ignorant, Regressive Repubtard has that shit going for him.. He should speak more kindly of me, from the time I untangled his ankle from the spin sheet of a Melges 32 before he would have got launched overboard!!

 

 

 

 

 

BERNIE SANDERS FOR POTUS!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is some simple shit, Jocal. Call for a Constitutional Convention to challenge the second, but suck dick on the commerce clause.

 

I would love a convention. The states and people might prosper as a result. Enumerated powers might actually mean something.

 

Take my neighbor's gun via the law, or just keep posting graphs that show your ownership of a gun doesn't count. Maybe you can have a conversation with my particular friend Billy Backstay.

 

Whatever you do, Jocal, please make sure you post a few weeks of repetitive reading. If I didn't have to scroll for at least two minutes through your crap to get to the idiocy comment, I'd be worried about your health.

 

RD, you need to fix the hump in that international assault fatality chart.

If you don't, others will set about to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constitutional convention.

 

Righties and lefties alike think "oh, it's the answer" and no one, repeat no one would know what would come of it. I'd guess a lot of violence as the coasts try to insert a whole lot more control of the country and the central less populated states would dig in. A simple "why the fuck does Nebraska get 2 senators" illustrates the issue.

 

 

Don't listen to Levin. He's a fucking idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is some simple shit, Jocal. Call for a Constitutional Convention to challenge the second, but suck dick on the commerce clause.

 

I would love a convention. The states and people might prosper as a result. Enumerated powers might actually mean something.

 

Take my neighbor's gun via the law, or just keep posting graphs that show your ownership of a gun doesn't count. Maybe you can have a conversation with my particular friend Billy Backstay.

 

Whatever you do, Jocal, please make sure you post a few weeks of repetitive reading. If I didn't have to scroll for at least two minutes through your crap to get to the idiocy comment, I'd be worried about your health.

 

RD, you need to fix the hump in that international assault fatality chart.

If you don't, others will set about to do so.

 

 

Hey dumbschidt - given that the "hump" was back in the late 70s - I'd say its been fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Constitutional convention.

 

Righties and lefties alike think "oh, it's the answer" and no one, repeat no one would know what would come of it. I'd guess a lot of violence as the coasts try to insert a whole lot more control of the country and the central less populated states would dig in. A simple "why the fuck does Nebraska get 2 senators" illustrates the issue.

 

 

Why do you hate America so much???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites