http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824

I guess the criminals were at too much of a disadvantage. Gotta disarm the law abiding types a little more!

Magazines with more than 10 bullets? Seriously?

Jesus, and the ship begins to take on water.

I can understand the cop killer bullets, the assault weapon and even making gun shows follow the same rules as a regular merchent. However none of those things will affect the very very very weak sauce reason they are citing in this article. THe are linking it with the problems with the mexican cartel violence?

Do they think the sheeple that follow them blindly will accept this crap as reality? Far as I know the AK47 isn't an American made weapon so how's that going to affect the situation?

Fucking stupid and totally expected, if Obama signs this into law he'll lose a bit of my respect to be sure.

No, no, I'm sure that Mexican drug cartels are very mindful of US laws. Also, the people here who supply them with smuggled weapons are also quite law abiding. Definitely.

I guess I can understand the logic. However I think an easier solution if he feels the cartels are that big of a problem, is to just lockdown the border.

I forget who it was, but someone on here said something like: Bring a massive troop presence to our border, completely lock it down, and legalize drugs.

If the cartels can't get into the US, it's game over for them. No more revenue (since we obviously use most the drugs), no more weapons, and they will deteriorate rapidly.

Of course this probably will also mean no more illegal immigrants which I guess is a big no no?

Yep, legalize drugs and the cartels disappear. How fast did the bootleggers disappear after prohibition was repealed? Poof.

Cut my taxes and tax drugs instead. The revenue off pot and coke taxes would be insane.

Still would have to lock down the border though I think. I don't think legalization should apply to ALL drugs, so they would still have some incentives.

I'm actually doing quite a bit of reading lately, yes you sobs made me think outside my comfort zone. ( you being everyone on here! )

I'm with legalizing and using the monies for treatment. Undercut those violent sobs and really put them out of work. Lock down the border with the troops coming home ( nothing like live fire training to keep our military sharp ).

Probably would have to lock the border down to prevent the displaced thugs from coming across and trying to replace their drug trade with robbing everyone in a border state. It would only be temporary though.

After they turned inward and killed each other off, otherwise died out, or moved on to something else, we wouldn't even need to lock down the border. There's not enough profit in smuggling legalized substances to make it worth the potential risks*.

On top of that, with no more drug income to pay off the entire Mexican government, honest law might be able to be restored there (and to a lesser extent the same applies to our border patrol and DEA).

* Yes, I know there's a cigarette black market, but it's a tiny, tiny minority of cigarette sales. There's also not enough profit in it to grow a real criminal enterprise around it. The people who do that are either small time losers or an arm of larger organized crime.

Probably would have to lock the border down to prevent the displaced thugs from coming across and trying to replace their drug trade with robbing everyone in a border state. After they turned inward and killed each other off, otherwise died out, or moved on to something else, we wouldn't even need to lock down the border.

On top of that, with no more drug income to pay off the entire Mexican government, honest law might be able to be restored there (and to a lesser extent the same applies to our border patrol and DEA).

Yes that too. I have a feeling kidnapping would become a much bigger crime than it already is now. Hard to believe, lol.

I greatly agree though that honest law could actually take place without the massive war chests to buy off politicians. For instance, the head drug Czar is on trial for taking bribes from a cartel. Another I read was the mayor of a town being under investigation for having his police chief killed for going after a certain cartel. I mean, wtf?! So insane.

Do you support complete legalization though, Sanchek? Because I am cool with most drugs, but something like heroin I would have to say no too.

Legalize and control like alcohol. Solves many many issues. I think the estimated tax revenue off of Marijuana legalization alone is in the 200-300 billion dollar per year range.

Do you support complete legalization though, Sanchek? Because I am cool with most drugs, but something like heroin I would have to say no too.

Swiss heroin trials.

Do you support complete legalization though, Sanchek? Because I am cool with most drugs, but something like heroin I would have to say no too.

Yes. There's no more point funding the Afghan drug cartels than the Mexican ones.

If someone wants opiates, they'll get them anyway. Heroin is pretty rough, but is it that much worse than a bottle of Everclear?

Because I am cool with most drugs, but something like heroin I would have to say no too.

Is the reason you don't do heroin because it's illegal or because you know it basically rots you from the inside out? I mean really. abusing heroin does the same damage as abusing alcohol so I say legalize it, control it and tax it.

14 year old kids can buy heroin easier than they can get a wine cooler...Control! Control!

Jesus, and the ship begins to take on water.

I can understand the cop killer bullets, the assault weapon and even making gun shows follow the same rules as a regular merchent. However none of those things will affect the very very very weak sauce reason they are citing in this article. THe are linking it with the problems with the mexican cartel violence?

Do they think the sheeple that follow them blindly will accept this crap as reality? Far as I know the AK47 isn't an American made weapon so how's that going to affect the situation?

Fucking stupid and totally expected, if Obama signs this into law he'll lose a bit of my respect to be sure.

Yeah this is a lame fucking reason...I can't buy into this.


Jesus, and the ship begins to take on water.

LOL...I must admit that line sums it up!

Legalize and control like alcohol. Solves many many issues. I think the estimated tax revenue off of Marijuana legalization alone is in the 200-300 billion dollar per year range.


I don't know if it would be that high (no pun intended), but I'm obviously for legalization and taxation. The figure being floated out of California in the bill that's in their state house right now is 1.3billion in income a year off of taxation and another 1 billion a year in reduced law enforcement in marijuana based crimes. For California alone, that's 2.3 billion a year, but they are a huge economy to reach that figure.

50 billion plus a year though, I think wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.

Because I'm ignorant in the field, and obviously a govt worker, can't they test and tell if you are high at work as opposed to doing it on your own free time?

14 year old kids can buy heroin easier than they can get a wine cooler...Control! Control!

I don't buy that argument though. I am a pot smoker. Everyone on this board knows that fact. There are times when it's all but impossible for me to find it, and I have readily disposable income to purchase it.

It's not hard to find someone to buy an underage person some liquor or cigarettes. I know in high school I had a FAR easier time scoring some alcohol than I did pot.

Because I'm ignorant in the field, and obviously a govt worker, can't they test and tell if you are high at work as opposed to doing it on your own free time?


Not that I know of. I know that a daily smoker will test positive for pot for 23ish days(in a piss sample, for a hair sample it's six months). That doesn't differentiate whether I was high last night or 3 weeks ago except they can notate how powerful the positive is. That 'may' give a time frame, but a heavy user from 2 weeks ago may test 'more' positive than an occasional smoker that smoked last night or today.

It's also stored in fat, so based upon fat levels of an individual, different people will metabolize pot at much different rates.

So my answer would be , in the advent of legal pot, to lose weight!! ;P

How do you propose that with the ensuing munchies???!!

I had errrr heard about those munchies from a friend of a friend who knew a guy who knew things.

Ummmm shoot, treadmill !!...no wait that's too much effort!

I wonder if they'd pursue legislation like this if it applied equally to their own safety (i.e. the Secret Service had to comply with it too)?

I don't know about you, but I expect my secret service, military, and police to be better armed than the average citizen. I wish I could say I expected them to be be better armed than the criminals, but well....

What about self production? Should that be illegal if we legalize use? For instance marijuana growing is legal by CA law, and would be quite difficult to make it deadly (assuming you could).

What about a drug like meth or ecstasy? An amateur chemist could easily make a bad batch (resulting in death to its users) or blow up his neighborhood.

I don't know about you, but I expect my secret service, military, and police to be better armed than the average citizen. I wish I could say I expected them to be be better armed than the criminals, but well....

North Hollywood bank robbery?

I don't personally think that meth should be legalized. It's too addictive and too destructive.

Ecstasy on the other hand... it's damned near impossible to OD on pure ecstasy. The LD50 of ecstasy ranges anywhere from 80 to 300 mg/kg depending on how pure it is. The more pure the ecstasy is, the less risk there is any OD.

I'm not opposed to legalizing cultivation of pot obviously. If the government were to legalize ecstasy though, it would have to be strongly regulated to make sure it's not 'cut' with more harmful chemicals.

I don't personally think that meth should be legalized. It's too addictive and too destructive.

Ecstasy on the other hand... it's damned near impossible to OD on pure ecstasy. The LD50 of ecstasy ranges anywhere from 80 to 300 mg/kg depending on how pure it is. The more pure the ecstasy is, the less risk there is any OD.

I'm not opposed to legalizing cultivation of pot obviously. If the government were to legalize ecstasy though, it would have to be strongly regulated to make sure it's not 'cut' with more harmful chemicals.

Yes that was my concern with ecstasy and meth, it would need mass regulation to ensure quality.

I think it should then be illegal to self produce. However I think it will be too expensive to even do so for most people. A company like Glaxo will be able to make most drugs for a fraction of current costs.

Cultivation of pot should be legal, I agree.

I don't buy that argument though. I am a pot smoker. Everyone on this board knows that fact. There are times when it's all but impossible for me to find it, and I have readily disposable income to purchase it.

It's not hard to find someone to buy an underage person some liquor or cigarettes. I know in high school I had a FAR easier time scoring some alcohol than I did pot.

The argument is extremely valid, you can't find weed at times because those selling it smoked it or someone got busted. I know that people out there will buy underage kids liquor just as they would weed or heroin if it required a store and minimum age to purchase. But other than stupidity what is their incentive? Surely not large sums of money.

When I was in high school I can't ever remember anyone asking for my ID when I bought weed...but there were quite a few times I tried for beer and didn't get it because I didn't have ID.

North Hollywood bank robbery?

The body armor they had isn't illegal, and was the crux of the issue. But more importantly, you don't change fundamental laws around statistically improbable events.

I don't know about you, but I expect my secret service, military, and police to be better armed than the average citizen. I wish I could say I expected them to be be better armed than the criminals, but well....

Do you think our government officials deserve better protection than your wife and daughter? I don't.

Do you think our government officials deserve better protection than your wife and daughter? I don't.

No, but I want to be better protected and I work for the govt!! ;P

Do you think our government officials deserve better protection than your wife and daughter? I don't.

Realistically, yeah the president deserves better protection than me or my family. There's a lot more at stake if he dies than if I die.

Government has a monopoly on violence by the very definition of its existence. From Caveman tribes to complex western democracies.

Try to deal with that fact.

More firepower doesn't make your family any safer.

Government has a monopoly on violence by the very definition of its existence. From Caveman tribes to complex western democracies.

Try to deal with that fact.

More firepower doesn't make your family any safer.

Eh, that's opinion and not one I share.

The sound of a 12 gauge chambering a round in an unfamiliar house ellicits a pavlovian response from your garden variety thug trying to steal your goodies.

I don't personally think that meth should be legalized. It's too addictive and too destructive.

Ecstasy on the other hand... it's damned near impossible to OD on pure ecstasy. The LD50 of ecstasy ranges anywhere from 80 to 300 mg/kg depending on how pure it is. The more pure the ecstasy is, the less risk there is any OD.

I'm not opposed to legalizing cultivation of pot obviously. If the government were to legalize ecstasy though, it would have to be strongly regulated to make sure it's not 'cut' with more harmful chemicals.


One of the arguments in favor of legalizing is the federal involvement in the control of the drugs. You aren't going to be buying from some joker on the corner who might "cut" the product to increase his profits, but instead buying from a licensed retailer (possibly the neighborhood pharmacist) with a controlled product at a cheaper price than what the corner jokers can afford to sell for, and taxed at the same time to pay for the federal involvement.

The legalization of drugs would make it so you know what you are getting when you buy them, rather than the current risk of the unknown additives.

And for most chemicals, I'd be all for that situation.

Government has a monopoly on violence by the very definition of its existence. From Caveman tribes to complex western democracies.

Which is one of the reasons why the founders saw fit to give us the 2nd Amendment.

More firepower doesn't make your family any safer.

Where would you draw this arbitrary line of firepower vs. safety? If firepower doesn't make my family safer, then why would the Secret Service need it either?

You can't have that one both ways and make sense...

Realistically, yeah the president deserves better protection than me or my family. There's a lot more at stake if he dies than if I die.

Okay, replace Secret Service with your security detail of choosing. You're focusing on an extreme here. Does my House Rep, Tom Price (who I think is awesome), deserve better protection than your wife and child?

One of the arguments in favor of legalizing is the federal involvement in the control of the drugs. You aren't going to be buying from some joker on the corner who might "cut" the product to increase his profits, but instead buying from a licensed retailer (possibly the neighborhood pharmacist) with a controlled product at a cheaper price than what the corner jokers can afford to sell for, and taxed at the same time to pay for the federal involvement.

The legalization of drugs would make it so you know what you are getting when you buy them, rather than the current risk of the unknown additives.

Yeah, exactly.

When's the last time you worried that your prescription drugs were cut with tub cleaner or that a pack of Marlboros were laced with pesticide?

Which is one of the reasons why the founders saw fit to give us the 2nd Amendment.



Where would you draw this arbitrary line of firepower vs. safety? If firepower doesn't make my family safer, then why would the Secret Service need it either?

You can't have that one both ways and make sense...


I would expect someone like maybe Rush or Hannity to toss out such an argument ...... Getting enough sleep lately?

I would expect someone like maybe Rush or Hannity to toss out such an argument ...... Getting enough sleep lately?

Where's the logic? Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Either more firepower is more effective protection/deterrent or it's not. If anything, well trained security personnel should require less firepower to effectively repel a given attacker.

Of COURSE it makes sense San.

It is not your job or your duty to be the sole legal vendor of force. The government requires the upper hand because it must maintain a overwhelming advantage of force over all.

Read up on your John Locke. Social Contract. We give up our rights for revenge or justice in exchange for a civil society. The government in order to be a neutral arbiter and dispenser of justice requires the ability to bring to bear total and overwhelming force. If there is an equanimity of force, then anarchy reigns.

A case in point is various times in the history of the United States. At times armed gangs have had more power than law enforcement, and they then made the rules for the area they lived in. If it was the Black P Stone Rangers or Al Capones mafia, the end result was the same.

You cannot give citizens overwhelming firepower because it degrades the advantage law must have to be supreme.

Law Enforcement requires the ability to be flexible. The ability to bring overwhelming numbers at times (the notorious Pig Pile, named for 30 cops jumping on 1 person) or at times when an officer or a enforcement body is out numbers, or against equal numbers, the ability to bring to bear a massive advantage in the form of firepower or technology.

Our constitution specifically and unequivocally denies than the government is the sole owner of force and just as clearly assigns that specific right to the people. That was a very conscious choice at the time of writing given the state of other Western nation-states with regards to the monopoly of force usually maintained.

It is, in fact, our "duty" to responsibly maintain that. The Law is supreme, the state is not.

Realistically, yeah the president deserves better protection than me or my family. There's a lot more at stake if he dies than if I die.

I doubt obama can play a bard in a high end raid...

Our constitution specifically and unequivocally denies than the government is the sole owner of force and just as clearly assigns that specific right to the people. That was a very conscious choice at the time of writing given the state of other Western nation-states with regards to the monopoly of force usually maintained.

It is, in fact, our "duty" to responsibly maintain that. The Law is supreme, the state is not.

What he said.

Forgetting all the lofty rhetoric, it boils down to one thing for me: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and watch harm befall my girlfriend, myself, or even our dog, just because someone with an entire government agency assigned to protect him thinks that I don't need effective self-defense.

Of COURSE it makes sense San.

It is not your job or your duty to be the sole legal vendor of force. The government requires the upper hand because it must maintain a overwhelming advantage of force over all.

Read up on your John Locke. Social Contract. We give up our rights for revenge or justice in exchange for a civil society. The government in order to be a neutral arbiter and dispenser of justice requires the ability to bring to bear total and overwhelming force. If there is an equanimity of force, then anarchy reigns.

A case in point is various times in the history of the United States. At times armed gangs have had more power than law enforcement, and they then made the rules for the area they lived in. If it was the Black P Stone Rangers or Al Capones mafia, the end result was the same.

You cannot give citizens overwhelming firepower because it degrades the advantage law must have to be supreme.

Law Enforcement requires the ability to be flexible. The ability to bring overwhelming numbers at times (the notorious Pig Pile, named for 30 cops jumping on 1 person) or at times when an officer or a enforcement body is out numbers, or against equal numbers, the ability to bring to bear a massive advantage in the form of firepower or technology.

Local law enforcement is the lowest level of control though. Regardless of some thugs having automatic weapons (which they probably can get regardless of the ban) they, being law enforcement, always hold an advantage. They have the support of the public, which out numbers gangs millions to one.

On top of that, if the gangs do somehow become more equipped to an extreme advantage (which I am unsure of many instances) a more dominant force can be brought in (I.E national guard, army, marines, etc) which holds far greater technology, training and brute force than any street gang could ever hope to acquire.

What he said.

Forgetting all the lofty rhetoric, it boils down to one thing for me: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and watch harm befall my girlfriend, myself, or even our dog, just because someone with an entire government agency assigned to protect him thinks that I don't need effective self-defense.

Could you not argue that in realistic terms of protection, said politician requires requires more effective self-defense because those who would attempt to assassinate or kidnap would most likely have a more effective offense?

The likelihood of you ever needing an AK47 to defend yourself is relatively slim. In almost all cases of personal safety, a 12 gauge or a 9mm would suffice.

In mexico (since we brought it up earlier) when there are attacks on politicians, I have read about AK47s, grenade launchers, and even landmines (wtf?). So it is understandable that equal force would be needed, and a 9mm would not suffice in this case.

I know it is a somewhat bad comparison, but since I never really hear of organized attempts to assassinate politicians (in recent years) it is hard to draw a better comparison.

Granted I generally don't think there should be a gun ban (just good regulation), I am just trying to look at it from both sides.

The likelihood of you ever needing an AK47 to defend yourself is relatively slim. In almost all cases of personal safety, a 12 gauge or a 9mm would suffice.

My current 9mm and the 12 gauge that I looked at today would both be restricted by the Clinton ban. It's absurd that those fairly pedestrian weapons would be restricted, while the people breaking into houses are using illegally obtained AR15s.

Full automatics have been banned for decades, regardless. Far as I know, true "assault weapons" have never really been available to the public in either of our lives. This type of legislation is not about that at all, but tries to dress itself up as such.

My current 9mm and the 12 gauge that I looked at today would both be restricted by the Clinton ban. It's absurd that those fairly pedestrian weapons would be restricted, while the people breaking into houses are using illegally obtained AR15s.

Full automatics have been banned for decades, regardless. Far as I know, true "assault weapons" have never really been available to the public in either of our lives. This type of legislation is not about that at all, but tries to dress itself up as such.

Interesting. The article did not give too much information if I recall other than a certain number of weapons being banned (not named however) and the 10 ammo clip.

I can't imagine it would be able to withstand a supreme court challenge if that was the case. After last years case it would be pretty tough to ban certain 9mm handguns and 12 gauge shotguns.

From what I understand (and I could be wrong), last year's 2nd Amendment victory was a bit misleading. It did reaffirm individual rights to own firearms, but it also strengthened the position that the government has the right to impose broad restrictions that don't totally infringe upon those individual rights.

So, something like the Clinton gun ban would likely be supported by that decision, as little sense as that makes.

This is one subject where me and President Obama will never agree on.

If I had the funds at the moment I would buy a few more guns before the ban. I love the M16!

The more I think about it the more I realize that the chance that this would ever pass is extremely slim or none at all.

It would be pure political suicide to ever attempt to ban guns with your main argument being Mexico has a drug cartel problem and it's our fault. If anything this is a cogent argument for drug legalization and or border enforcement.

More importantly it's inarguable proof that already existing laws aren't being reliably enforced. If the BATFE can't stop FFL class 3 weapons from crossing an international border, what are they supposed to do about 1000x that volume of other firearms?

Okay, replace Secret Service with your security detail of choosing. You're focusing on an extreme here. Does my House Rep, Tom Price (who I think is awesome), deserve better protection than your wife and child?

You brought up the secret service first, I was responding with that answer to direct comments from you.

I doubt obama can play a bard in a high end raid...

Only because of a time constraint (that also is preventing me from raiding high end too).

You brought up the secret service first.

The President is not the only person protected by the Secret Service. Are you intentionally trying to avoid the point here?

It's sort of sad that I apparently care more about the potential safety of your family than you do...

What he said.

Forgetting all the lofty rhetoric, it boils down to one thing for me: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by and watch harm befall my girlfriend, myself, or even our dog, just because someone with an entire government agency assigned to protect him thinks that I don't need effective self-defense.

And what does that have to do with whether you have an assault rifle, or a semi-automatic pistol that has a clip with 10 or more bullets?

If you need 10 bullets ready to fire, you are probably dead already.

No one is saying you can't have a gun unless you are a felon or a loony, you just don't need a machine gun (I know, extreme example) to protect your family.

You just bought a 9mm and you have a shotgun for knockdown power. What does restricting assault weapons have to do with what you have chosen to protect your house hold with anyhow?

Do you think our government officials deserve better protection than your wife and daughter? I don't.

This. Also if you are not responsible for your family's safety then who is? I'm certainly not depending on you. Yes police are great, but lots can and does happen before they get called/arrive on scene. As someone that has done rescue for a living, I can tell you, shit can go south fast.

You just bought a 9mm and you have a shotgun for knockdown power. What does restricting assault weapons have to do with what you have chosen to protect your house hold with anyhow?

As I've already pointed out, both my 9mm and the shotgun I looked at today would have been unavailable under the Clinton ban.

The President is not the only person protected by the Secret Service. Are you intentionally trying to avoid the point here?

It's sort of sad that I apparently care more about the potential safety of your family than you do...

Don't bitch at me anymore about strawmen ass fucker.

Me not having a problem with banning of assault weapons has nothing to fucking do with how much protection I feel my family is worthy of. Having an assault weapon in my house would make them much more at risk than if I didn't have an assault weapon.

As I've already pointed out, both my 9mm and the shotgun I looked at today would have been unavailable under the Clinton ban.
and for what reason? you can get a 9 mm with a smaller clip than 10 bullets if that's the problem, and I have a hard time believing your shotgun would be banned.

ass fucker.


!

It is NOT cool to talk about someone's family and make ASSumptions about it. If that's going to be the fucking status quo around here, I'll just not come back. Sanchek has no right to bring my fucking family into this and then act like I don't care about their safety.

I'd love for him to say that to my face.

You just bought a 9mm and you have a shotgun for knockdown power. What does restricting assault weapons have to do with what you have chosen to protect your house hold with anyhow?

Because the Clinton era version of this law in question was horribly written and "assault weapon" is not by itself even a technically meaningful term. If whatever comes out of this is anything like it, will arbitrarily restrict firearm sales and likely substantially increase prices just like the old did (without much of any other effect).

Since we all liked talking about regressive taxes so much, this is the same problem. You're forcing average citizens to either forgo their personal safety OR pay a much higher premium for it while not accomplishing anything otherwise.

As has been stated numerous times, the most egregious examples of what people think should be banned are already illegal and have been so restricted for all of our lifetimes. And yet, in the same period, enforcement has demonstratively never been applied with sufficient rigor.

Don't bitch at me anymore about strawmen ass fucker.

Me not having a problem with banning of assault weapons has nothing to fucking do with how much protection I feel my family is worthy of. Having an assault weapon in my house would make them much more at risk than if I didn't have an assault weapon.

Except it doesn't just apply to assault weapons. It applies to hand guns as well.

If that's going to be the fucking status quo around here, I'll just not come back.

I'd love for him to say that to my face.

loelz.

What would you do? You don't have assault weapons :p

Our constitution specifically and unequivocally denies than the government is the sole owner of force and just as clearly assigns that specific right to the people. That was a very conscious choice at the time of writing given the state of other Western nation-states with regards to the monopoly of force usually maintained.

I completely disagree and do now know where these "unequivocable" statements are.

I do not think the second amendment creates a counter structure of force to hold back the government.

I understand that some people do. Others, like myself, disagree.

A Militia, as is prescribed by the constitution, is in no definition operating outside of governmental control. In my view, and I think the correct view, the FFs viewed the 2nd Amendment as a way around having a standing military. George Washington didnt give his farewell address warning about the dangers of government, he gave it as a warning against foreign entanglements and a plea for permanent neutrality. Without an Army, there was no ability to become involved in the affairs of Europe.

Our protections against Tyranny are ingrained in the system of checks and balances. Your possessing of a weapon designed for combat is in no way one of these, nor does it protect you in any way against criminals.

I think everyone should be able to have as many handguns, shotguns or rifles as they want. But there is no reason for a civilian to have a weapon designed to be used in combat setting. A person owning an AK or a M16 makes as much sense as a person owning a hand grenade, a claymore mine or an RPG.

It is NOT cool to talk about someone's family and make ASSumptions about it. If that's going to be the fucking status quo around here, I'll just not come back. Sanchek has no right to bring my fucking family into this and then act like I don't care about their safety.

I'd love for him to say that to my face.

Your predictable overcompensating is eclipsed only by your hypocrisy this time. You can lecture me about your family being off limits just as soon as you stop supporting legislation that will limit my ability to protect mine.

Sort of ironic you'd get so upset about me wanting your family to be safer, isn't it? Go take another hit on your bong, sir.

and for what reason? you can get a 9 mm with a smaller clip than 10 bullets if that's the problem, and I have a hard time believing your shotgun would be banned.

Oh, okay. I'll just tell them that Taleren from EverQuest doesn't believe it and tell them to sell it to me anyway!

This is roughly what I was looking at today:

http://www.davesguns.com/serverpics/FirearmsPage/Mossberg-500-Tactical-01.jpg

And yes, whether you believe it or not, it wouldn't have been legal to sell under the Clinton gun ban. In fact, it has two features that were banned.

I think everyone should be able to have as many handguns, shotguns or rifles as they want. But there is no reason for a civilian to have a weapon designed to be used in combat setting. A person owning an AK or a M16 makes as much sense as a person owning a hand grenade, a claymore mine or an RPG.

Neither a full auto AK or M16 is legal anyway, with or without these "assault weapon" bans. They use that verbiage to get your support, regardless of that fact that true assault weapons have always been banned.

I completely disagree and do now know where these "unequivocable" statements are.


A Militia, as is prescribed by the constitution, is in no definition operating outside of governmental control. In my view, and I think the correct view, the FFs viewed the 2nd Amendment as a way around having a standing military. George Washington didnt give his farewell address warning about the dangers of government, he gave it as a warning against foreign entanglements and a plea for permanent neutrality. Without an Army, there was no ability to become involved in the affairs of Europe.

Our protections against Tyranny are ingrained in the system of checks and balances. Your possessing of a weapon designed for combat is in no way one of these, nor does it protect you in any way against criminals.

I think everyone should be able to have as many handguns, shotguns or rifles as they want. But there is no reason for a civilian to have a weapon designed to be used in combat setting. A person owning an AK or a M16 makes as much sense as a person owning a hand grenade, a claymore mine or an RPG.

Washington also warned about political parties, unfortunately he could not take into account GLOBALIZATION. It is so unrealistic to be completely neutral and have nothing to do with European affairs. I can't imagine you would argue against US involvement into WW2.

OF course you think your view is right, or else you wouldn't have it. I disagree about your claims as checks and balances vs tyranny. In my view, the FFs meant a free state against too much government control. Not just as an army against outside parties. Checks and balances is all good as long as everyone is following the constitution. If a certain part of the government decides to stop following the rules, a militia of the people can rise up to reinstate law and the "Free state"

All those weapons you mentioned are ALREADY illegal. Handguns and shotguns are what's at stake.

I completely disagree and do now know where these "unequivocable" statements are.

I do not think the second amendment creates a counter structure of force to hold back the government.

I understand that some people do. Others, like myself, disagree.

A Militia, as is prescribed by the constitution, is in no definition operating outside of governmental control. In my view, and I think the correct view, the FFs viewed the 2nd Amendment as a way around having a standing military. George Washington didnt give his farewell address warning about the dangers of government, he gave it as a warning against foreign entanglements and a plea for permanent neutrality. Without an Army, there was no ability to become involved in the affairs of Europe.

Our protections against Tyranny are ingrained in the system of checks and balances. Your possessing of a weapon designed for combat is in no way one of these, nor does it protect you in any way against criminals.

I think everyone should be able to have as many handguns, shotguns or rifles as they want. But there is no reason for a civilian to have a weapon designed to be used in combat setting. A person owning an AK or a M16 makes as much sense as a person owning a hand grenade, a claymore mine or an RPG.

Its not like the government has ever broke the law and been corrupt right? Oh wait...

Also the stuff you guys are complaining about have been illegal for a long time. So just admit, you don't know what you are bitching about and be quiet.

You are speaking about apples and oranges here. L2 is correct when he asserts that it is necessary for the government to maintain a significant advantage with regards to how much force it can bring to bear against criminal uprising, but this is not necessarily in conflict with the Second Amendment - after all, we currently allow citizens legal access to a wide wide variety of plenty lethal weapons for the purpose of home (and community) defense. I *would* submit, however, that the task of maintaining a 'well-armed militia necessary for defense of the nation' referred to in said second Amendment is adequately and appropriately served by the National Guard, and that is what it was created for - an institution designed to train civilians to be part-time soldiers, to be used for the defense (of all sorts) of their communities, and that, as L2 has stated in the hour and a half while I was in lecture and this post languished, 'militia' doesn't mean 'completely outside of governmental control'. Granted, given our recent abuse of the National Guard in extended overseas deployments, and our recent and shameful history with *hired* militias (aka Blackwater), it seems citizen groups could hardly do worse in this regard...

I guess I can understand the logic. However I think an easier solution if he feels the cartels are that big of a problem, is to just lockdown the border.

Hahahahahahah (cough) hahahahah (wheeze) Oh god, it hurts...

Buzya, have you ever actually lived in a border town? The culture and daily life in those 'single cities that share an international border' (especially in South Texas) is completely intertwined, and their sympathies are such that citizens, even in the face of rising drug violence, are violently opposed to such 'locking down' - they commute across the border daily to live and work, have family on both sides, and view outsiders who don't understand the border way of life with hostility - and Customs and other border agents are so routinely bribed and or simply inclined to look the other way that border enforcement is a joke. The only way out of the drug cartel cycle of violence (for us and Mexico) is to legalize it, tax it, and let each nation have its slice of the pie. Add to that fact that you're talking about a three (thousand* mile border, most of it lightly populated, and tell me how feasible stopping gun smuggling by 'border enforcement' is going to be...

As far as today's statement goes, I think the outcry is a tempest in a teacup; they're only seeking to reinstate an expired ban, and while I think the clip limitation in itself is a bit silly, is it *that* hard to simply load up a few clips and get a gun with the quick-release variety, if you're that concerned about the approaching government (or zombie ;) ) hordes?

Regards,
Nydia

I completely disagree and do now know where these "unequivocable" statements are.

"those which, though neither expressly delegated to the national government by the Constitution nor prohibited by it lo the States, are reserved to the people of the United States."

The Constitution provides no basis for the monopoly of force by State OR Federal entities and this was even a major legal issue at one point when a private navy invaded North Africa and tried to give the resulting captured lands to the nation.



I do not think the second amendment creates a counter structure of force to hold back the government.

I understand that some people do. Others, like myself, disagree.

A Militia, as is prescribed by the constitution, is in no definition operating outside of governmental control.

We can all think whatever we want but the language of the Constitution is fairly clear. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does not leave a lot of room to argue.

Regarding the issue of militias, in the time of writing most municipalities considered every citizen a member of the militia. Moreover militias are specifically paramilitary in nature and have nothing to do with recreational activities. It could have been a proscription against needing a standing army, it was far more likely an acknowledgment that people were going to form groups to serve their communities in times of trouble and those groups were going to be armed sometimes. The prohibitions against curtailing free assembly and the press are similarly worded -- civic life at the time included pervasive firearm ownership just as much as newspaper circulation.

We can go around about the meaning of that concept today all we want, but what should happen is that a constitutional amendment be made that replaces it. Until such as that happens, cleverly wording your way around the very obvious intent of the existing Supreme Law is at best dishonest and at worst anathema to the rule of law entirely.



I think everyone should be able to have as many handguns, shotguns or rifles as they want. But there is no reason for a civilian to have a weapon designed to be used in combat setting. A person owning an AK or a M16 makes as much sense as a person owning a hand grenade, a claymore mine or an RPG.

You can legally own and use explosives almost identical to those devices. You can't use them for illegal purposes. This sort of dichotomy of legal and illegal use exists in many other legal frameworks for actions of citizens, and yet only in very few cases do we outright disallow owners. It's already illegal to possess rocket launchers and machine guns without a Federally granted license -- that's probably much more in line with the Constitution although I bet if it was seriously challenged you could find fault.

These hyperbolic examples have nothing to do with the "scary looking gun ban" or any other law that simply prohibits versus well regulating possession, particularly on stupid and almost random grounds.


As an aside, for a very interesting footnote on US history, you should look into the firearm ownership issues (particularly relating to actual military hardware never employed by normal citizens) around the paramilitary for-profit companies and the citizens they often repressed 1840-1930ish.

Hahahahahahah (cough) hahahahah (wheeze) Oh god, it hurts...

Buzya, have you ever actually lived in a border town? The culture and daily life in those 'single cities that share an international border' (especially in South Texas) is completely intertwined, and their sympathies are such that citizens, even in the face of rising drug violence, are violently opposed to such 'locking down' - they commute across the border daily to live and work, have family on both sides, and view outsiders who don't understand the border way of life with hostility - and Customs and other border agents are so routinely bribed and or simply inclined to look the other way that border enforcement is a joke. The only way out of the drug cartel cycle of violence (for us and Mexico) is to legalize it, tax it, and let each nation have its slice of the pie. Add to that fact that you're talking about a three (thousand* mile border, most of it lightly populated, and tell me how feasible stopping gun smuggling by 'border enforcement' is going to be...

As far as today's statement goes, I think the outcry is a tempest in a teacup; they're only seeking to reinstate an expired ban, and while I think the clip limitation in itself is a bit silly, is it *that* hard to simply load up a few clips and get a gun with the quick-release variety, if you're that concerned about the approaching government (or zombie ;) ) hordes?

Regards,
Nydia

Are you suggesting if we put a massive military presence on the border, with a real wall/fence, used drones, and other state of the art technology we could not greatly reduce the outflow of weapons and inflow of drugs?

As far as today's statement goes, I think the outcry is a tempest in a teacup; they're only seeking to reinstate an expired ban, and while I think the clip limitation in itself is a bit silly, is it *that* hard to simply load up a few clips and get a gun with the quick-release variety, if you're that concerned about the approaching government (or zombie ;) ) hordes?

So, um, what's the point of arbitrarily banning those 5-7 extra bullets then? Where's the rationalization for that limit?

All the ambiguous arguments about militia then vs. army now are largely pointless. The Supreme Court again reaffirmed that the 2nd Amendment refers to individual rights just last year.

How does my 17 round 9mm clip endanger the Federal Government's monopoly on lethal force? Have we forgotten Waco already? That was just the FBI. If things were to get serious, NORTHCOM would roll in with tanks, Predators, and F18s.

Do you really think a pistol grip shotgun puts the Air Force's air supremacy in danger?

As far as today's statement goes, I think the outcry is a tempest in a teacup; they're only seeking to reinstate an expired ban, and while I think the clip limitation in itself is a bit silly, is it *that* hard to simply load up a few clips and get a gun with the quick-release variety, if you're that concerned about the approaching government (or zombie ;) ) hordes?

Regards,
Nydia

I will have to check because i'm not sure, but I think quick release was illegal under the last ban. Im not sure though.

PS im ready for the zombies!

BTW whoever said owning an M16 is illegal, you are wrong.

There are some modifications that make it illegal, as well as using a 30 round clip as opposed to a 10 round clip.

You are speaking about apples and oranges here. L2 is correct when he asserts that it is necessary for the government to maintain a significant advantage with regards to how much force it can bring to bear against criminal uprising

Criminal uprisings? Which ones? The FBI reservation office by itself was enough to suppress the Indian rebellions of the 70s despite "scary looking guns" being available. The aforementioned bank robbery was very rapidly brought to a conclusion as soon as the cops brought in some rifles functionally identical to the hunting gear you can buy at Walmart (or in one case got lucky and shot a guy's thumb off with a service pistol).

The last time somebody got scared that the BATF(not yet E) wouldn't be able handle something they illegally brought in military hardware (violating Posse Commitatus) on fabricated evidence and used tanks to murder dozens of people -- is the "scary gun ban" going to prevent child molesters from acquiring anti-tank rockets?

There was no apparent problem suppressing the no-gun-control-era Harper's Ferry rebellion either, in which (somewhat ironically) people fighting for the freedom of others were easily defeated by a small detachment of the state forces in which the entirety of "superior force" for one day of the conflict consisted of a battering ram and a sword!


There is no Constitutional allotment of force, lethal or otherwise, to the state versus the individual citizens. It obviously is required that law enforcement exists and have some means of using force in a lawful manner, but that is unrelated to any legal need of absolute (or even merely entirely overwhelming) force. I think L2 and Nydia are confusing the issue of lawful use of force with the political science issue of monopoly on force -- something the Founding Fathers weren't very keen on by all evidence.

Originally Posted by Nydia Ywalmoriel http://ayonae.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ayonae.com/showthread.php?p=163001#post163001)
You are speaking about apples and oranges here. L2 is correct when he asserts that it is necessary for the government to maintain a significant advantage with regards to how much force it can bring to bear against criminal uprising


I'll go out on a limb here...M1 Tanks, ToW Missiles, Hellfire Missiles, 2.75 inch rockets, F-15's, A-10s, Aegis Cruisers, Large Aircraft Carriers along with the odd land or sub based ICBM etc... create a significant advantage over an M-16 with a 30 round magazine.

Anyhow bottom line is this...it's real easy to fuck up in a firefight...so no one here should be assuming that in a tight situation where a volume of fire is coming in or going out they will perform in any admirable way. Lotta hope in how things would go...but hope is easy and rarely stays together when things go bad.

Are you suggesting if we put a massive military presence on the border, with a real wall/fence, used drones, and other state of the art technology we could not greatly reduce the outflow of weapons and inflow of drugs?

I'm suggesting that it's economically and otherwise so impractical as to be laughable, as well largely ineffective for the reasons I've already stated - and our government already knows this.- they're not even suggesting that we fence more than 700 miles of the border, and I've *been* to some of that fence (since it was going across part of our campus at Laredo), and it's a flimsy joke in any case, as I've described here previously (but a great photo-op for Chertoff ;) ).

What are you suggesting, that we build a 3000 mile Great Wall of America, to keep out the barbarian hordes? Do you have any idea how much that would cost, even assuming it somehow provided any meaningful return on investment? The fence itself is being met with vehement opposition (speaking of civil unrest) by the citizenry, including many of the landowners whose property will be encroached upon by it. Also, we *already* have a massive force in the border towns by way of Border Patrol (we're talking hundreds of those green and white cars constantly patrolling Laredo and its environs, where I lived for five years), Customs, local law enforcement on both sides of the border, *and* the National Guard in Arizona, and want to know what sort of meaningful impact its having on trafficking? Jack and squat, although gun smugglers are lauded in the society pages of the local papers (not kidding, they did a feature on a prominent one's house, although he was in Venezuela avoiding extradition while some misunderstandings were cleared up, his wife having to keep up the social calendar, and the 750k Botero painting in the foyer several years ago in Laredo) and violence has certainly escalated as the traffickers just bring bigger guns. As I've also mentioned, if you haven't been watching the news, local enforcement heads on the Mexican side now have life spans measured in *hours* if they aren't bought.

That having been said, while I think using 'Mexican Drug Cartels' as justification for the ban is ludicrous, and that certain parts of the bill are empty 'feel good' legislation, that there is a legitimate purpose in closing the gun show loophole and making it more difficult (if only by making them more expensive) to get certain sorts of weapons, and if only to keep idiots from hurting themselves with them in senseless displays of machismo.

Regards,
Nydia

"those which, though neither expressly delegated to the national government by the Constitution nor prohibited by it lo the States, are reserved to the people of the United States."


"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REPUBLIC) Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


And of course... the most important one.


To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Its kind of tough to get around the fact that the Constitution defines Militia in the preamble. They knew EXACTLY what one was and what they wanted from it. Its only today that we have so twisted its meaning to think that they wanted a parallel army waiting with weapons to overthrow them in case they messed up.

Some of the bans are silly.. but the folding stock one makes sense. A folding stock may have many uses, buts a major one is concealment. Similar to the ban on sawed off. I think the fear is a plethora of sawed off, pistol grip, folding stock, shotguns. Making a weapon easier to get than a pistol, with more potential firepower, easily hidable and instead of being a home defense/sport item, becomes a offensive weapon. And I think thats really the point.... keep weapons available to the public heavily defensive in nature and ban all weapons that are primarily, or designed to be, offensive in nature.

I'm suggesting that it's economically and otherwise so impractical as to be laughable, as well largely ineffective for the reasons I've already stated - and our government already knows this.- they're not even suggesting that we fence more than 700 miles of the border, and I've *been* to some of that fence (since it was going across part of our campus at Laredo), and it's a flimsy joke in any case, as I've described here previously (but a great photo-op for Chertoff ;) ).

What are you suggesting, that we build a 3000 mile Great Wall of America, to keep out the barbarian hordes? Do you have any idea how much that would cost, even assuming it somehow provided any meaningful return on investment?

Regards,
Nydia

According to this, a REAL fence was built in San Diego and drug trafficking went down 90% and crime down 50%.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/border-barrier.htm

I am suggesting we keep out the barbarian hordes, yes. One way or another.

According to a few estimates I read, it would cost 50 billion over 25 years. Some estimates as low as 40 billion others as high as 65 Billion. Being from california, just the savings we would have from other illegal immigration related problems (incarceration, health care, education) should help pay for most of the fence, if not all.

Yes some land would have to possibly be taken via eminent domain should a deal be unreachable (monetary, technological monitoring, etc). Shit happens. I however have also read of numerous people who said they would gladly allow the government to use portions of their land for patrolling, though I am unsure if they would sell it out right or what percentage of people that is.

Either way, if legalization did not happen to put the cartels out of businesses, I don't see many other ways other than border control. As I said before, if you stop the influx of drugs into the US, not even by 100%, but by a substantial amount, you would greatly hinder the cartels. Less money means less power and influence back in Mexico. We also would help curb the weapons outflow which would help the legitimate law enforcement in Mexico fight the cartels.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, we could in fact lock down our border. It would not be easy by any means, but it is in fact doable. And if it was done, it would greatly damage the cartels.

The President is not the only person protected by the Secret Service. Are you intentionally trying to avoid the point here?

It's sort of sad that I apparently care more about the potential safety of your family than you do...


Why don't you go back to arguing points that you make sense on, and not this silly shit about gun laws, where you end up sounding like some morning radio talking head.

The pendulum has swung so many times in my lifetime on this issue it is ridiculous. As Obama has already demonstrated, the changes one administration tries to ram through can be undone by the next with opposite sympathies.

And, as we have seen with every piece of gun legislation to date, they pile on all kinds of 'wants', so that certain items can be negotiated away as they try to work out a compromise.

Debating this right now is really a waste of time and energy. Better to watch what, if any, progress this bill makes through committees and such before ever getting even close to a vote. And, let's see how much money the NRA pumps into the lobbying efforts.

You *do* realize that 'globalsecurity.org' is a pro-military contractor 'thinktank' and lobbying outlet, right? The language on their website contains some laughably bad lobbyistspeak (in particular, the 'history' page on 'about us'), and despite their thoroughness they're far from an unbiased source re the feasibility of anything, much less building a 3000 mile wall... (and reinforcing 20 miles or so of wall in a highly populated area where it can be backed up with live surveillance is orders of magnitude easier than building a fortress across several thousand miles of godforsaken wasteland, much of which doesn't even have roads servicing it)

Also, the article you linked only cites data between 1989 and 2000 (a period during which drug-related violence and crime was flat border-wide, most of the activity being in the south of Mexico) and doesn't at all address the exponentially expanding gang-related violence since 2003, when the Zetas and a couple of other gangs with Mexican army connections began operating in earnest in the border zone - the first major wave of violence and State Department warnings coming in 2005. I wonder why there aren't any statements about how effective that wall is less than eight years old?

In any case, the ludicrousness of making a 'fortress' out of the border is only tangential to the issue of whether the gun control measure being put forth is justified, but I will say that in both cases that some of the people being 'hurt', are/will be law abiding citizens (like the very bright Mexican national students I had that can no longer cross the border to attend college at LCC (in the 25 mi border zone, and thus they're entitled to come) due to the expense of the visa now required for those daily crossings)

Regards,
Nydia

'No, no, I'm sure that Mexican drug cartels are very mindful of US laws. Also, the people here who supply them with smuggled weapons are also quite law abiding. Definitely.'

- That's right, arm the entire population easily because of mexican drug cartels.

That is crazy troll logic.

There is no Constitutional allotment of force, lethal or otherwise, to the state versus the individual citizens. It obviously is required that law enforcement exists and have some means of using force in a lawful manner, but that is unrelated to any legal need of absolute (or even merely entirely overwhelming) force. I think L2 and Nydia are confusing the issue of lawful use of force with the political science issue of monopoly on force -- something the Founding Fathers weren't very keen on by all evidence.

I am not, by any means, suggesting that the federal government have a *monopoly* on force - and if things really go to hell in a handbasket, and the government decides to roll the tanks against the new Bonus Marchers, their handguns, for that matter, M-16s, aren't likely to make much of a dent in any case. Rather, I'm thinking, as the framers of the original Clinton-era bill were, in terms of the ban being a 'public health' issue with regard to what local law enforcement, the rubber/road of everyday life in our society, is likely to encounter in their day to day. I'm not naive enough to suggest that making specific semiautomatic weapons illegal is going to keep these weapons out of the hands of anyone who *really* wants them, but I also think there are few good cases for justifying such things as folding stocks (as L2 mentioned) or automatic weapons for 'self-defense'. What I can see, and which Malse alluded to, is a much stricter set of licensing qualifications, with more stringent tests/background checks, for the use of what might be construed as 'offensive' weapons/configurations, which of course the 'outlaws', if they really want them, will pay for on the black market anyway (and which one could then institute stiffer penalties for being caught with them, as opposed to the Class B misdemeanor simple unlawful carrying is in most cases).

Regards,
Nydia

L2 has already addressed the issue of 'the Militia' being defined in the Constitution as being designed and intended to protect the *nation*, being clearly overseen (disciplined, trained, supplied) by the government, so I won't belabor the point; except to add in addition that most of us are in no danger of being attacked by hostile Indians, bears, or zombies anytime soon ;).

Nydia, your non-CrazyTroll Logic(tm) has no place here! Off with you - to sanity and beyond! We welcome here only drive-by shooters and bloodlusting rednecks!

ps people always underestimate the pending outbreak of zombie attacks.

I'll go out on a limb here...M1 Tanks, ToW Missiles, Hellfire Missiles, 2.75 inch rockets, F-15's, A-10s, Aegis Cruisers, Large Aircraft Carriers along with the odd land or sub based ICBM etc... create a significant advantage over an M-16 with a 30 round magazine.

so what youre saying here is you want to ban my Ohio class sub? this is shocking! how do you want me to protect my family without it? im truly amazed you apparently dont care about your family as much as i care about mine.

:rolleyes:

- That's right, arm the entire population easily because of mexican drug cartels.

That is crazy troll logic.

Heh...this isn't about arming the population because of Mexican drug cartels...we are already armed!

What I never understood is how people think that laws will stop something from happening.

Laws will never prevent someone from taking a perfectly legal 12 guage shotgun, sawing off the barrel and the stock, and carrying it around.

What it will do is allow for additional punishments to be added to whatever charges might arise from the use of that weapon.

While that may act as an incentive for some, not to modify and carry around the weapon, a person who is all ready a criminal (someone who should not have a firearm in the first place) will pay little heed to the law. That's why they are called criminals.

That having been said, while I think using 'Mexican Drug Cartels' as justification for the ban is ludicrous, and that certain parts of the bill are empty 'feel good' legislation, that there is a legitimate purpose in closing the gun show loophole and making it more difficult (if only by making them more expensive) to get certain sorts of weapons, and if only to keep idiots from hurting themselves with them in senseless displays of machismo.
Gee, thanks, mom! :rolleyes:

I'll go out on a limb here...M1 Tanks, ToW Missiles, Hellfire Missiles, 2.75 inch rockets, F-15's, A-10s, Aegis Cruisers, Large Aircraft Carriers along with the odd land or sub based ICBM etc... create a significant advantage over an M-16 with a 30 round magazine.

Part of my recent job , had to leave it due to spinal injury, was dry firing the A10's 30mm gun.

/insert Tim Allen grunts

There is nothing like it!!!! Even without the live rounds it's a rush!

'No, no, I'm sure that Mexican drug cartels are very mindful of US laws. Also, the people here who supply them with smuggled weapons are also quite law abiding. Definitely.'

- That's right, arm the entire population easily because of mexican drug cartels.

That is crazy troll logic.

You're arguing backwards (for lack of a better term atm).

Not talking about arming due to said cartel, atm they are talking about taking away our guns due to the cartel and that's weak sauce.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


That's not a definition of militia, that's a list of things the Federal institutions can use them for and ways to regulate them. There is still nothing in there about "required overwhelming force" and throwing out that backdoor-to-revolution thing is just a strawman, this isn't a NRA meeting and I have yet to see anyone seriously suggest that a bunch of people with 12-round magazines magically gain the power of throwing down government.

Yes, back in the good old days the government actually provided armories that would be turned out to citizens. Just because the National Guard has taken over some of the duties the transient militias used to does not mean the NG is and entirely contains it.

You were closer on with the notion that an armed private citizenry (the intent of the amendment) was a good reason not to have a standing army (considered a bad monopoly on force),


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person

Interesting addendum there, isn't it. The militia is a body subject to laws that may be compelled to service, but it's still individual and private citizens. Just because the Army has a huge budget now and doesn't need us to provide our own rifles when we get drafted nowadays doesn't mean the law stopped existing.



And I think thats really the point.... keep weapons available to the public heavily defensive in nature and ban all weapons that are primarily, or designed to be, offensive in nature.

Which is still unconstitutional until someone finds whatever combination of integrity and fortitude necessary to do it the right way. And in the meantime, even presuming the 94 ban was legitimate, it was still a remarkably stupid law that had no statistically observable effect on crime whatsoever.

The Congress is no more above the rule of law than the Bush executive was, and the latter got rightly reamed on a daily basis for their excesses. Yet when something you approve of does the exact same thing, that's magically ok now? This sort of complicit dishonesty is bad enough on its own, but we're doing it for something everyone who has any real information on the subject knows to be ineffectual.

And I think thats really the point.... keep weapons available to the public heavily defensive in nature and ban all weapons that are primarily, or designed to be, offensive in nature.

Offensive or Defensive is a purely situational, lets look at the Claymore mine:

"They ran at me blazing away and I defended myself by detonating my Claymore mine"

"I set Claymore mines up, detonating them as we started our assault"

It all depends on how one uses a weapon.

As far as today's statement goes, I think the outcry is a tempest in a teacup; they're only seeking to reinstate an expired ban, and while I think the clip limitation in itself is a bit silly, is it *that* hard to simply load up a few clips and get a gun with the quick-release variety, if you're that concerned about the approaching government (or zombie ;) ) hordes?

Regards,
Nydia

Actually reinstating the Clinton ban is only *one* of the measures the administration wants to pursue according to the article. We haven't seen the full extent of their intent yet. Closing the gun-show loopholes was mentioned (OK by me) for example, but the implication is they are looking at other restrictions as well.

In the meantime I'm balancing my paranoia with my financial worries. Buy a soon-to-be banned firearm or avoid the debt?

BTW whoever said owning an M16 is illegal, you are wrong.

There are some modifications that make it illegal, as well as using a 30 round clip as opposed to a 10 round clip.

Are you referring to an AR-15 or an M-16? Because the M-16 requires a FFL Class 3 to own. The AR-15 does not.

I think those modifications you mention are to modify an AR-15 to more closely approximate an M-16.

Wouldn't it be funny if gun manufacturers were paying off politicians to pretend that they're planning to ban certain guns, driving up demand to buy those guns "just in case"?

(No, I don't think this has any basis in reality, but it's always the first thing that comes to my mind when people say they're going to rush out and buy guns before they're banned.)

Wouldn't it be funny if gun manufacturers were paying off politicians to pretend that they're planning to ban certain guns, driving up demand to buy those guns "just in case"?

(No, I don't think this has any basis in reality, but it's always the first thing that comes to my mind when people say they're going to rush out and buy guns before they're banned.)

I was thinking along those lines today.

I went over to a larger gun shop today to get that shotgun. The place was absolutely overrun. We had to park behind the building, and wait 45 minutes just to give them money.

Still can't find 9mm ammo either. They didn't have any either (this is a huge warehouse type place that usually has tons (literally) of ammo).

Wouldn't it be funny if gun manufacturers were paying off politicians to pretend that they're planning to ban certain guns, driving up demand to buy those guns "just in case"?

(No, I don't think this has any basis in reality, but it's always the first thing that comes to my mind when people say they're going to rush out and buy guns before they're banned.)

It drives up demand, increasing the price. Though if a ban actually goes through, the gun manufacturer will lose a lot more money. Probably not worth the risk from their standpoint. Cute idea though.

Are you referring to an AR-15 or an M-16? Because the M-16 requires a FFL Class 3 to own. The AR-15 does not.

I think those modifications you mention are to modify an AR-15 to more closely approximate an M-16.

My friend who is in the military has an M16 that I was playing around with the other day, and he told me that it was legal as long as I kept a 10 round clip on it with that locking mechanism so you need a pin to take out the magazine.

He said I could easily buy it in parts and it would be completely legal unless I modified it the way he did with the muzzle flash reducer or whatever he called it.

My friend who is in the military

I think that is the key phrase. I don't believe a civilian can legally own *any* weapon capable of fully automatic fire without a class 3 license. I would be surprised if your friend is allowed to keep that weapon once he has left the service.

Sorry, I meant WAS in the military

Better ask him if he has a class 3 or if he in fact has an AR-15. Because if you can legally own an M-16 without the expensive license, I want one :)

My friend who is in the military has an M16 that I was playing around with the other day, and he told me that it was legal as long as I kept a 10 round clip on it with that locking mechanism so you need a pin to take out the magazine.

He said I could easily buy it in parts and it would be completely legal unless I modified it the way he did with the muzzle flash reducer or whatever he called it.

Wrong, and wrong...

It's the auto function of a M16 that makes it illegal , the magazine is a seperate issue.

It is an M16 for sure, because we discussed it and other types many times, including the AR-15.

It is a badass gun indeed, and I was thinking of getting one as well, but can't really convince myself that it is a necessary expenditure right now.

I know he said that you don't need a special kind of license, but I will ask if he has a class 3 himself.

I think that is the key phrase. I don't believe a civilian can legally own *any* weapon capable of fully automatic fire without a class 3 license. I would be surprised if your friend is allowed to keep that weapon once he has left the service.

You can't take your rifle home with you. The M-16 or AR-15 is pretty much the same. I can only speak for what was a few years back when the M-16 A1 was the standard issue. The rifles had everything from M-16 to AR-15 to M-15 stamped on them and the flash suppressors varied from the cage to 3 prong versions. M-16 is a DoD designation and the model type is based on the Mfg of the individual rifle.

Wrong, and wrong...

It's the auto function of a M16 that makes it illegal , the magazine is a seperate issue.

Well he has one, he was in the Navy and in Iraq (which makes him qualified to talk about everything according to your standards) and he said it is legal without the part he has on the muzzle or whatever its called.

He also said that the M16 he has with no clip in it is also illegal, but as soon as he puts the 10 round clip on it, it is legal again... Something about the fact that with no clip in it you MIGHT put a 30 round clip on it.... ludicrous if you ask me.

This is what I ended up getting:

http://www.maverickarms.com/pages/images/guns/31046big.gif

Pretty run of the mill, yet even it would have been nixed by the legislation proposed last year: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110hMJ2Yj:e12727:

Going to get one of the 500 series pistol grips for it and switch that stock out.

Is that a Mossberg?

Yeah.

I got a Mossberg as well, I got the one with 2 barrles included... Short for home defense, and longer for hunting!

Looks just like yours!

I've really enjoyed target shooting with the 9mm. This one, I hope I never have to use.

The Mossberg 500...clearing bunkers and breaching doors for over 50 years! Stay with the standard...lol..I get a kick out of the "run of the mill". Pistol grips, folding stocks do not make the enemy anymore dead. Save your money...the gun is fine and just as effective.

(Mine's not a 500, BTW)

I just want it to be more comfortable for my girlfriend to use, and reduce the length as much as possible. I don't care if it looks "cool" or not.

You can get sabot rounds or flechette rounds for that...and they will penetrate body armor. I know of a few Marines who after consuming some experimental beverages fit some body armor over a 5 gallon bucket and fired at it....very big hole in the armor and very shattered bucket. Needless to say we became less confident of our 1955's

How does that help? Do they have less kick?

I figured I'd just get the $25 pistol grip online and be done with it.

How does that help? Do they have less kick?

I figured I'd just get the $25 pistol grip online and be done with it.


He is talking about home defense rounds/ammo for maximum damage on a perp; few house burglars wear body armor though, so 00 should be sufficient, as you can remove a limb with it.

I agree that the pistol grip might make it more comfortable for your girlfriend, but would suggest letting her practice with stock weapon first. She might prefer it, or not.

what I would use for home defense is something like #6 shot. That is exceptionally deadly at close range and you don't have to worry too much about misses going through walls and out into the population. If you think about it at close range you have a very concentrated pattern of shot, in the average house I'd say somewhere between 12-18" pattern, which translates into a 12-18 invh hole of very shredded flesh, that will knock a horse over and instill some serious panic in the victim of your shot.

Full automatics have been banned for decades, regardless. Not really. Full auto weapons made before 1984 can still be sold, although many states don't allow them. Some states are dishonest, such as CA, which technically allows them inside the state, but in practical terms, only movie studios (and their armorers) can obtain state permits for full auto. Full auto guns made after the cutoff can only be sold to law enforcement. The paperwork for a class 3 license is rather long and complicated (last time I was interested, I think it was about 10 pages long, the current 5320.4 is only 4 pages long), and the sales prices of full auto weapons are breathtaking (think of the price of a car and go up from there).

The Mexican gangs like the P90 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90) and Five seveN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-seveN). There are a couple of rounds available, and at least one is designed to penetrate body armor. The Mexicans like to call those guns "matapolicias" (cop killers) because of their effectiveness. FN claims the armor piercing rounds are only sold to military, but they're getting in the hands of the gangs down there.

Its kind of tough to get around the fact that the Constitution defines Militia in the preamble. You're wrong. (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode32/usc_sec_32_00000313----000-.html) of title 32 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode32/usc_sup_01_32.html), under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.




(b) The classes of the militia are—
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Source (http://Source)
The Constitution doesn't define what the militia is, 10USC311 does. Effectively, any male who says they're in the unorganized militia is in the militia. Looking around my apartment, I could only qualify to be in the disorganized militia. If we could find it.
Wouldn't it be funny if gun manufacturers were paying off politicians to pretend that they're planning to ban certain guns, driving up demand to buy those guns "just in case"?
Gun sales went nuts last fall because many folks were convinced that Obama would not only reinstate the assault gun ban, but ban even more guns. I thought they were nuts. I see I was wrong about this.

Gun sales went nuts last fall because many folks were convinced that Obama would not only reinstate the assault gun ban, but ban even more guns. I thought they were nuts. I see I was wrong about this.


Never discount the subtle machinations of the NRA in these rumor-driven runs on gun stores.

The Constitution doesn't define what the militia is, 10USC311 does.

Thanks, I knew that had been codified at some later point, but couldn't remember when. Once again reiterating the militia is specifically inclusive of private citizens not immediately in the employ of any state or federal authority ie, everyone (the code itself is c1908, any reading of it today would have to take into account amendment 15 and 19).


Ah, yes, and an earlier one (guess who's in the militia -- all voting citizens not infirm with age or exempted due to various judicial or religious reasons):


That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,

The act continues for several pages with lists of the equipment all citizens were required to have, mostly a working combat musket and travel gear.

"Source" doesnt work Smidget.

Militia Act of 1792
So according to that, we can take the guns away from people 45 years or older?

And put this in historical context. The year is 1792. The protection afforded by the British Empire, the most powerful military is gone. The young US is surrounded by enemies, the Spanish to the south in Florida, the French to the West and of course, the hated British to the North.

But thats not all... that specific act that you are talking about in 1792 was enacted for a reason. A group of people out on the frontier in Pennsylvania had taken it on themselves to be a private militia and assume duties of government, enforce laws, and resist paying a tax. http://ahp.gatech.edu/whiskey_rebellion_1794.html
This was called the Whiskey Rebellion.
Washington needed to cobble together a force big enough to attack and destroy these private armed citizens. So the act of 1792 was needed and Washington created an army of 12,000 men from it. A HUGE army at that time for the tiny United States.

These men who resisted the government were labeled traitors and were killed.

Furthermore, it would behoove you to read this.
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-3/Cornell.pdf

This debate is one that started with Federalists and Anti Federalists. Publius (Aka Alexander Hamilton) writing in the Federalist Papers, does a brilliant job destroying the Anti Federalist ideas of an unorganized militia and describes EXACTLY what the FFs meant when they talking about a militia.
He goes into great detail explaining that core freedoms are protected by a large organized militia, with officers chosen from amongst themselves, organization and training.

The Second Amendment is crystal clear about what it is when you read Hamiltons thought, a protection of the STATES (not the individual) from the encroaching power of the Federal government.
After the Revolutionary War, states had large, well trained, seasoned militias. They were loath to hand them over to the Federal government. And the fear was that the Federal Government would hamstring the states ability to maintain these bodies by imposing a gun ban. The Second Amendment guarantees the rights of states to protect themselves from the federal government, not the right of individuals to build their own, private arsenals. This reading of the amendment is supported by an analysis of the language of the amendment and by a historical examination of the arguments surrounding the establishment of federal and state militias.

It should have been a link to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

http://www.guncite.com/

This site has references to most the laws and papers concerning the second ammendment. I found it interesting reading the different supreme court rulings through the years.

So according to that, we can take the guns away from people 45 years or older?

And put this in historical context. The year is 1792. The protection afforded by the British Empire, the most powerful military is gone. The young US is surrounded by enemies, the Spanish to the south in Florida, the French to the West and of course, the hated British to the North.


The British, who ALSO afforded militias .... and you forgot the Shaysite rebellion as well, and a few other minor conflicts.

But in your sputtering you're still missing the point. The reason part of the law in its varied forms before ratification gave a litany of reasons why you wanted militias, most of them related to the security of the nation itself. However, the rest of the law, the important part assigns a specific and individual right to a group composed of all able-bodied citizens to possess firearms for nothing related to sporting reasons. This has been repeatedly affirmed.

Since you, and many like you, love gross hyperbole about blood running in the streets from the host of rednecks with MG42s and surface to air missiles; Let's have a Federal law you can only peaceably assemble between 6am and 6pm and see how well that goes over, and then add a kicker you can only assemble in groups less than 10 and not with anyone of the other gender while alcohol is present.

Public safety you know. Far more people suffer injustice at the hands of drunks than any other non-medical affliction.

That is, I assume, ok with you, because the Constitution never proscribed the government from addressing public health. Your ability to read around the lines is equally farcical. What's supreme, the rule of law, or the rule of rhetoric?

Not really. Full auto weapons made before 1984 can still be sold, although many states don't allow them. Some states are dishonest, such as CA, which technically allows them inside the state, but in practical terms, only movie studios (and their armorers) can obtain state permits for full auto. Full auto guns made after the cutoff can only be sold to law enforcement. The paperwork for a class 3 license is rather long and complicated (last time I was interested, I think it was about 10 pages long, the current 5320.4 is only 4 pages long), and the sales prices of full auto weapons are breathtaking (think of the price of a car and go up from there).

That's a bit misleading. With a fixed, dwindling supply of pre-1986 (not 84) guns and the relatively high hurdle of getting a class 3 license, it's quite difficult to realistically obtain a "machine gun". Completely impossible in the heat of the moment.

To get a class 3 license, you have to get a Federal background check, get fingerprinted, and even get your local law enforcement to physically sign off on your application. These aren't criminals or the type of people who take gun safety lightly.

what I would use for home defense is something like #6 shot. That is exceptionally deadly at close range and you don't have to worry too much about misses going through walls and out into the population. If you think about it at close range you have a very concentrated pattern of shot, in the average house I'd say somewhere between 12-18" pattern, which translates into a 12-18 invh hole of very shredded flesh, that will knock a horse over and instill some serious panic in the victim of your shot.

I just picked up some "AA heavy target load" at Wal-Mart. It's all they had, and I wanted to get comfortable loading and unloading the gun if nothing else.

I got contradicting opinions on how effective that would be against a larger gentleman instead of a clay target. Thoughts? I'll order something better, but would like to have an idea of what I've got in the meantime.

I just picked up some "AA heavy target load" at Wal-Mart. It's all they had, and I wanted to get comfortable loading and unloading the gun if nothing else.

I got contradicting opinions on how effective that would be against a larger gentleman instead of a clay target. Thoughts? I'll order something better, but would like to have an idea of what I've got in the meantime.

In the average home a load like you have should suffice. I'm sure you know but just for conversation a shotgun basically fires in a cone, gets larger and less concentrated at greater distances. I a home the distance would probably not be that far...maybe 5-15 feet and in that distance the bird shot is concentrated almost to the point of being a wall of shot hitting them at an incredible amount of energy. I would bet the shock would kill them if the shot didnt. The thing is the theoretical situation is going to be quite exciting, I don't mean in a good way, and a miss will usually result in the death or wounding of the defender.

If you have choke tubes for the barrel keep a full choke on and it will keep it pretty tight yet allow for a not so accurate shot at home defense ranges.

a miss will usually result in the death or wounding of the defender.

Why's that?

Speaking of fine weaponry I just picked up my Grandfathers (dads side) Remington Model 11-48 Sportsman 20ga Shotgun.. Manufacture date stamp of Dec. of '48... Kinda happy thought I'd share..lol

Speaking of fine weaponry I just picked up my Grandfathers (dads side) Remington Model 11-48 Sportsman 20ga Shotgun.. Manufacture date stamp of Dec. of '48... Kinda happy thought I'd share..lol

Sweet. Good condition, or needing some TLC?

Why's that?


Because forgetting to reload and shoot again is very common in gun fights or defensive gun situations.

Sweet. Good condition, or needing some TLC?

Good serviceable condition.. It could use a good going through though.. It's a recoil based auto feed so I am sure the tension rings inside could use a looking at.

The British, who ALSO afforded militias .... and you forgot the Shaysite rebellion as well, and a few other minor conflicts.

But in your sputtering you're still missing the point. The reason part of the law in its varied forms before ratification gave a litany of reasons why you wanted militias, most of them related to the security of the nation itself. However, the rest of the law, the important part assigns a specific and individual right to a group composed of all able-bodied citizens to possess firearms for nothing related to sporting reasons. This has been repeatedly affirmed.

Since you, and many like you, love gross hyperbole about blood running in the streets from the host of rednecks with MG42s and surface to air missiles; Let's have a Federal law you can only peaceably assemble between 6am and 6pm and see how well that goes over, and then add a kicker you can only assemble in groups less than 10 and not with anyone of the other gender while alcohol is present.

Public safety you know. Far more people suffer injustice at the hands of drunks than any other non-medical affliction.

That is, I assume, ok with you, because the Constitution never proscribed the government from addressing public health. Your ability to read around the lines is equally farcical. What's supreme, the rule of law, or the rule of rhetoric?

Does it HAVE to go there just because I disagree with you? Whatever.

My core argument is that the federal government has the right to ban/limit certain weapons and the right of people to own various weapons is not absolute. No right is absolute.

To bottom line it.... I think its reasonable, and a pretty good compromise, that people can own whatever defensive weapons they want, but all citizens should be banned from weapons that are offensive in nature. They key is to come up with and define which is which.

Does it HAVE to go there just because I disagree with you? Whatever.

You were the one who brought RPGs into this, well after assigning the "redneck revolution is our only guarantee of freedom!" argument out of nowhere.

I've got a strict Constitutional reading with the kicker of people who spend way more time studying criminology than either of us finding no benefit from the ban, and a very debatable one from the 68 and 86 acts. You'll forgive me if after years of people telling me I don't need a crew-served antiaircraft cannon that I'm a little sick of the hyperbole.


that people can own whatever defensive weapons they want, but all citizens should be banned from weapons that are offensive in nature. They key is to come up with and define which is which.

Offensive is easily covered by unlawful use of force, meaning the primary target of this ban should be investment bankers.

Because forgetting to reload and shoot again is very common in gun fights or defensive gun situations.

I'm not worried about freezing up. Not to sound like Osg, but I've been tested on several occasions and feel pretty confident that I'll be okay.

I do worry about my girlfriend though. We'll probably take it out to the country after I get the pistol grip and run some shells through it. Maybe muscle memory will kick in.

The line of argument emanated from the governments need to have a monopoly of force. Basically you agree with Max Weber or you don't, but I havent read a good refute of his ideas yet on the nature of governments.

The entire argument isn't about absolute rights to have any weapon you want. This is an argument about degrees. Not if the government is just in limiting certain weapons, but what should be the thresholds. Obviously it helps to set those boundries. 9mm, sure.... RPG, nope. Now what should be done is to find a reasonable level of allowable firepower.

Even there, the government (Federal, local and state) maintains its monopoly on violence. Federalism prevents the central government from being able to exercise an abundance of it. But nowhere is the individual granted a share in the ability to dispense violence. At its core, the second amendment is a not a particularly solid piece of work. The right to bear arms is tied into the FFs call for a militia. But what of that? A look at the core history of the debate and the times shows without a doubt that the 2nd Amendment was placed in there not to give the individual power, but to let militias remain under the control of the states, giving the states, presumably, the power to resist the Federal Government. But Lincoln pretty much ended that idea. The fear, it seemed, was that the Federal Government could undercut the states ability to field and maintain a militia by preventing people from owning guns, thereby making the minutemen style of army that they had won the RR with, impossible to maintain and cost probhibative.

I bring up the redneck revolution scenario in the abstract, because even if the people on this board don't believe it and realize its a bunch of crap, there is a huge number of people out there who do believe it.

But back to Weber and the Monopoly of Violence. This is what the idea sums up as, feel free to show me where our government does not fit this description.

1. The State is the wellspring for all legitimate uses of violence.
2. While others may use violence, its application is authorized, defined and closely scrutinized by the State. You might be defending your home or property, but the state has granted you this ability (not a natural right) under strict conditions and circumstances that they closely and jealously regulate. (See Katko v. Briney)
3. All violence in a civil society is public.
4. Free Market ideas do not, nor have they ever worked with violence.

Wrong, and wrong...

It's the auto function of a M16 that makes it illegal , the magazine is a seperate issue.

Exactly. If they are modified to be semi auto, I don't think they are illegal. Being full auto is a no no.

2. While others may use violence, its application is authorized, defined and closely scrutinized by the State. You might be defending your home or property, but the state has granted you this ability (not a natural right) under strict conditions and circumstances that they closely and jealously regulate. (See Katko v. Briney)


I would also argue that this is not a right that is theirs to give. Some rights are inalienable and the right to defend ones home is one of them.

It isn't.

defending life... yes... defending property... no.

If you leaned out your window to shoot some person using a crowbar to open your outshed, you would be charged with a criminal offense by all probability.

In many/most states the right to self defense is interpreted as if someone has broken into your house, and you had a reasonable ability to egress or avoid the person, and you choose to confront them and wind up killing them, in your own house, then you could be charged with murder.

Your right to property does not supercede his right to life, nor does he forfeit his natural right to life if he has not infringed or put your right to life in jeopardy.

It isn't.

defending life... yes... defending property... no.

If you leaned out your window to shoot some person using a crowbar to open your outshed, you would be charged with a criminal offense by all probability.

In many/most states the right to self defense is interpreted as if someone has broken into your house, and you had a reasonable ability to egress or avoid the person, and you choose to confront them and wind up killing them, in your own house, then you could be charged with murder.

Your right to property does not supercede his right to life, nor does he forfeit his natural right to life if he has not infringed or put your right to life in jeopardy.

This is true, but not in all states. Also many things get passed into law only to be struck down later, that does not make them "legal". Besides I personally would not consider my shed my home. But to each their own.

In many/most states the right to self defense is interpreted as if someone has broken into your house, and you had a reasonable ability to egress or avoid the person, and you choose to confront them and wind up killing them, in your own house, then you could be charged with murder.

Your right to property does not supercede his right to life, nor does he forfeit his natural right to life if he has not infringed or put your right to life in jeopardy.

Is it many or is it most? The weasel words there betray your mixing personal ideology with what is actually fact.

While that is true in some areas, "Castle" laws have actually been on the rise, not declining.

For example, Georgia's 2005 bill: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/sb396.htm

A person who is justified in threatening or using force against another under the provisions of Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force

In fact, your own state has a Castle law too, FYI: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/pub/Chap951.htm#Sec53a-20.htm

Hmm, so you do have the right to use deadly force to defend your life AND property.

Makes sense, since the police have a response time of at least 10 minutes in most cases.

Probably a whole lot more police lag time in places like Alaska and Texas....

Hmm, so you do have the right to use deadly force to defend your life AND property.

Yep.

Honestly, I can't imagine that I'd shoot someone over my plasma TV. I don't need that on my conscience for the rest of my life.

At the same time, I wouldn't shed a single tear for someone who did get shot in the process of trespassing and stealing from someone else. Claiming "right to life" while you steal the fruits of someone's labor from them is ludicrous.

L2 is guilty of trying to revise to suit his own opinions here. It's not an opinion upheld by most courts and is in fact , as noted by the increasing castle laws, a shrinking one.

Sorry, you don't get to revise the 2nd amendment to suit you. While I myself would say the line is well drawn at automatics and above I think you are trying to further redraw the line to suit your own motives.

Thankfully it's unlikely to happen, if it were the Dems will lose power quicker than normal. So for your own political view you best hope it doesn't happen.

Honestly, I can't imagine that I'd shoot someone over my plasma TV. I don't need that on my conscience for the rest of my life.



Well, now you have created another gray area for discussion: if you are going to buy a firearm to protect you, your loved ones and your home, at what point are you willing to use it? If you have an intruder in your home, are you just going to point the weapon at the person and ask if they only intend to burgle, or if they also intend to commit physical harm to the occupants?

Either use the weapons on the person(s) violating your "castle", or sell them; there is no gray area when someone breaks into your home, for their intent is clearly to do you harm, either physical or psychological.

And, btw, you would be surprised at how easily the conscience will lessen the importance of an act in relation to the circumstances. And note, I did not say to shoot to kill, but only to use the weapon, whether that be knee-capping the person or whatever the situation requires. If you are not going to put it to use immediately the odds improve of the intruder taking it and using against you.

well, now you have created another gray area for discussion: If you are going to buy a firearm to protect you, your loved ones and your home, at what point are you willing to use it? If you have an intruder in your home, are you just going to point the weapon at the person and ask if they only intend to burgle, or if they also intend to commit physical harm to the occupants?

Either use the weapons on the person(s) violating your "castle", or sell them; there is no gray area when someone breaks into your home, for their intent is clearly to do you harm, either physical or psychological.

And, btw, you would be surprised at how easily the conscience will lessen the importance of an act in relation to the circumstances. And note, i did not say to shoot to kill, but only to use the weapon, whether that be knee-capping the person or whatever the situation requires. If you are not going to put it to use immediately the odds improve of the intruder taking it and using against you.


amen!

Well, now you have created another gray area for discussion: if you are going to buy a firearm to protect you, your loved ones and your home, at what point are you willing to use it? If you have an intruder in your home, are you just going to point the weapon at the person and ask if they only intend to burgle, or if they also intend to commit physical harm to the occupants?

Either use the weapons on the person(s) violating your "castle", or sell them; there is no gray area when someone breaks into your home, for their intent is clearly to do you harm, either physical or psychological.

And, btw, you would be surprised at how easily the conscience will lessen the importance of an act in relation to the circumstances. And note, I did not say to shoot to kill, but only to use the weapon, whether that be knee-capping the person or whatever the situation requires. If you are not going to put it to use immediately the odds improve of the intruder taking it and using against you.

My point there is that I don't think I'm going to shoot someone sneaking out the back door with my TV in hand. I'd let them go before going offensive.

If the situation is questionable, I'd definitely err on the site of protection.

If they were just breaking down my door to peacefully steal my TV, oh well. Bad idea on their part.

Well, now you have created another gray area for discussion: if you are going to buy a firearm to protect you, your loved ones and your home, at what point are you willing to use it? If you have an intruder in your home, are you just going to point the weapon at the person and ask if they only intend to burgle, or if they also intend to commit physical harm to the occupants?

Having used a firearm to defend myself, fortunately without having to shoot anyone, it's not so much a grey area as a question of preparedness. I'd rather have the option of making a moral decision on the circumstances. Much like Sanch I don't think I'd shoot someone for stealing my car, unless I was in it at the time, despite being within my legal rights to do so in many jurisdictions.

(and I will get back to L2's Weber bit later, I've been a bit too busy to cross-cite)

Having used a firearm to defend myself, fortunately without having to shoot anyone, it's not so much a grey area as a question of preparedness. I'd rather have the option of making a moral decision on the circumstances. Much like Sanch I don't think I'd shoot someone for stealing my car, unless I was in it at the time, despite being within my legal rights to do so in many jurisdictions.

(and I will get back to L2's Weber bit later, I've been a bit too busy to cross-cite)


If you are in your home, and somebody breaks in, what moral decision is there to make? We can do all kinds of word play, and develop countless scenarios, but the point is that Sanchek has been all right wing/NRA about gun ownership and his rights to defend himself, and suddenly is introducing the hemming and hawing.......I am just saying that you are either going to defend yourself when someone breaks in, or those weapons you bought for that alleged purpose are likely going to be in the hands of a thief after he takes them from you and possibly uses them on you.

If you are not going to use the weapons to defend yourself, you should not have them available for a thief to take and put into the criminal circulation.

If someone is trying to steal my car, I will shoot them.

Fuck the defense of my body only bullshit. Trespass against me and you will regret it.

If you are in your home, and somebody breaks in, what moral decision is there to make? We can do all kinds of word play, and develop countless scenarios, but the point is that Sanchek has been all right wing/NRA about gun ownership and his rights to defend himself, and suddenly is introducing the hemming and hawing.......I am just saying that you are either going to defend yourself when someone breaks in, or those weapons you bought for that alleged purpose are likely going to be in the hands of a thief after he takes them from you and possibly uses them on you.

If you are not going to use the weapons to defend yourself, you should not have them available for a thief to take and put into the criminal circulation.

I've had the same decisions to make several times when it was my aluminum baseball bats instead of a gun, and those decisions went both ways too. I'm simply not interested in chasing someone down and killing them over a pair of Nikes.

My judgment and those two bats have served me just fine so far. A gun may be more expedient, but is certainly no more deadly. I don't see the decision changing much.

Maybe my world isn't as black and white as the one you apparently live in?

Well, this topic seems to have strayed. This ban isn't re-inventing the wheel. It seems to be more of a renewal of old legislation. It has nothing to do with home defense, unless you absolutely as a civilian feel you MUST HAVE an AR-15 or AK-47 variant or whatever peice of elaborate SOCOM whatever military hardware for home defense. In that case, you might as well buy a tank or learn how to make the DIY rockets Hamas uses because why stop at being able to level your house in order to keep someone from breaking into it? I can buy the arguement that the sale of these weapons and them being sent south is a valid problem. These are items like 50 cal sniper rifles and other such off in left field items that some military units would not mind having but can't because they can't afford to have them in their TOA or their mission dictates they don't need anything that crazy. Now where-ever there is a conflict, some one profits, but Mexico used to be a fun place and it would be discomforting to think that we had an almost 100% part in ruining a good thing, with the drug consumption being 80% of it. Granted this won't fix the real problem, which is the illegal drug trade, but there is no reason to further deepen it. Also, if a US border partol officer gets shot and killed and the investigation reveals that they were killed by a weapon and ammo sold to these thugs by US gun merchants, you can bet there will be a huge backlash against weapon sales in general in addition to the already over-arching political pressure from Mexican lawenforcement, be they for legitamate reasons or otherwise.

Well, this topic seems to have strayed. This ban isn't re-inventing the wheel. It seems to be more of a renewal of old legislation. It has nothing to do with home defense

Well, that's how they'd like to portray it, but the legislation proposed last year (basically a refresh of the Clinton ban) would ban both my 9mm and my 12 gauge. Apparently "assault weapons" are very much in the eye of the beholder.

If the beholders get any more liberal, they'll be banning my baseball bats next!

One time this guy with a big mouth jumped out of his car and took a swing at me with an aluminum bat, I grabbed it and broke his nose with my fist...actually kind of flattened it on his face then I beat him on the back of his legs with the bat so every step he took would remind him that all I did was yell for him to slow down his car as kids were playing in the street.


Usually when someone comes at you in a situation like that they lose 50% of their balls when they realize you don't care. If someone were to pull a gun on me they better kill me, if not I will rest assured hunt them and kill them within a day.

Well, that's how they'd like to portray it, but the legislation proposed last year (basically a refresh of the Clinton ban) would ban both my 9mm and my 12 gauge. Apparently "assault weapons" are very much in the eye of the beholder.

Beats me. I bought both my guns in California under their Nazi-ish gun laws. I have never had a large capacity mag because they are illegal there. Your 9 with a 10 round mag is perfectly legal as its the same 9 that comes with a 10 round mag in CA. The only difference is the follower size in the mag. My Glock 22 has a 10 round mag. My .357 has...well...6 rounds. 1 to 2 well aimed rounds are going to at the very least stop any assault. Honestly if you can't get the job done with 10 rounds or less than go back to the range or resort to the baseball bat because you stand as good a chance of capping your next door neighbor with all that stray lead due to poor marksmanship. As for your shotgun, at its core its still just a shotgun. If its an issue than get a regular stock put on it instead of just the pistol grip. Its still going to go bang bang just as well with a pistol grip or a standard stock.

Some of the stuff we can buy as civilians is just plain retarded. You can't hunt with it except in the case that you want to turn Bambi into a fine red mist or unless you want to wage your own private war, there is no reason to own this hardware unless you are compensating for something else. Speaking as a military member and someone who has received alot of weapons training in addition to serving as an instructor, the stuff they want to ban are weapons no civilian has any business having to begin with.

The Second Ammendment says I can keep and bare arms, but there has to be a limit to what is civilian usable and what is not.

As for your shotgun, at its core its still just a shotgun. If its an issue than get a regular stock put on it instead of just the pistol grip. Its still going to go bang bang just as well with a pistol grip or a standard stock.

That's the weirdest of the two. It can't be bought stock with a pistol grip, but is still specifically on the list (that exact model) set out in the bill last year.

Refresh my memory on what make and model of shotgun it is, Sanchek. Maybe it holds more than 5 rounds?

Oh. This edit reflects a link to the text of the bill and what it defines as being an "assault" model.

Text of Bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257:)

I still need to read it yet, so still a /shrug.

Mossberg Maverick 88. It holds 7 shots in the magazine.

Read the text fully for the shotguns. It has to have 2 or more of the following in addition to being semi auto:



`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--




`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;





`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;





`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and





`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

Yeah, but check out the proposed amendment to the explicitly banned list: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110q8QkUJ:e12727:

Mine's on there even though it only has one of those things.

You sure that isn't a list of weapons that are not banned and were listed as such because of the potential grey area?

Some of those weapons are incredibly tame. Old lever action rifles from 100 plus years ago are listed. Plus the Mossberg 500 is their "standard" model shotgun of which they listed alot of ordinary variants but not the "Special Purpose" model which is so obviously an assault weapon to the letter.

The Remmington Classic 700 is on there. Thats just an ordinary deer rifle.

You may be right. It doesn't really make much sense.

Of course, when my pistol grip arrives tomorrow, I'll be sure it's against that rule (8 shot + pistol grip)!

Clearly, as soon as I attach the grip, I will be overcome with the uncontrollable desire to start robbing banks and shooting up daycare centers.

Maybe my world isn't as black and white as the one you apparently live in?


I envy you, then.

You still might be off the hook even with the pistol grip.

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

The action of your shotgun is the pump.

You sure that isn't a list of weapons that are not banned and were listed as such because of the potential grey area?

Some of those weapons are incredibly tame. Old lever action rifles from 100 plus years ago are listed. Plus the Mossberg 500 is their "standard" model shotgun of which they listed alot of ordinary variants but not the "Special Purpose" model which is so obviously an assault weapon to the letter.




The Remmington Classic 700 is on there. Thats just an ordinary deer rifle. You're correct - it is a "whitelist". Reading the statute (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257:):

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:


`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.


`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.


`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--




`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

My bolding, not their's.

Clearly, as soon as I attach the grip, I will be overcome with the uncontrollable desire to start robbing banks and shooting up daycare centers.

Naw, wait till you get a laser sight before you hit the daycare centers. them little critters are not only small targets they move really fast as well.

Naw, wait till you get a laser sight before you hit the daycare centers. them little critters are not only small targets they move really fast as well.

Keeps you sharp!

Wouldn't scatter shot help with that?

Good mine field should help as well!

Claymores...tripwires...the hands off approach!

I prefer the gator filled moat approach.

Damn politicians will be taking away my gators next!

Well, I put the pistol grip on it yesterday and have still managed not to spray down any day-care centers. Amazing.

Well, I put the pistol grip on it yesterday and have still managed not to spray down any day-care centers. Amazing.

Clearly you are the exception to the rule!!

Surely you've felt the need to punish society as is your right as a gun owner!! Maybe just a twinge or a glimmer in your eye?

Well, obviously, if anyone raises their voice to me, it's going to be the wild, wild West in Georgia. But, other than that, nope!