Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-03-2013, 06:11 PM   #91
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Show me how it's blatantly unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and mortars is not a violation of that clause. I feel one could make a compelling case that banning things like high-capacity magazines (or anything else designed for military capacity, not civilian use) is similar.
First off, I never said anything about banning machine guns and mortars not being a violation. You've made the statement more than once now that automatic weapons are banned. However, your statements are repeated incorrect, which demonstrates you're either operating under assumptions or are misinformed. Fill out a Form 4, pay your $200 tax to the ATF and shell out $20k and many people could own a machine gun or grenades in a couple months.

Don't believe me, here's a select-fire M16A1 with full-auto capability, legally transferable and available today: Colt M16a1 US prop marked Transferable ! : Machine Guns at GunBroker.com

Second, I never stated there are not potential pros to certain bans. What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable - just as another ban on alcohol would be unacceptable. A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens. How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook? That was the law and it did nothing. How about the fact that both Connecticut and New Jersey have active assault weapon bans - how well did that prevent the crime? How well are drug laws doing at preventing drug addiction? I could go on for pages and pages.

When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked?

You keep saying that people are refusing to have a conversation about what society wants. What do you think the last 3+ pages of posts have been about?
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:14 PM   #92
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I don't see anything in the constitution about what 'types' of arms we are entitled to bear. Do you?

Jim, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal Government can choose which types of arms you can bear. It prohibits that government from denying you the right to bear "arms" not which type of arms. The Constitution is basically, as Obama likes to say, a charter of negative liberties. It denies the Federal Government, and to some extent even state governments, all liberties except those specifically granted to it. If it does not grant the gvt. freedom to legislate on a matter, the gvt. cannot do so. There are no provisions in the Constitution, neither in the defined powers granted to the central government, nor in the enumerations within those powers to violate your right to bear arms. Of course, the Constitution has, as you say, been trampled, so what the heck, keep on trampling.

We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and . . .
Collectively banning rather than doing so by ammendment is the type of danger that the Constitution attempted to avert. Collective banning of constitutional rights is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Collective rule rather than the rule of law is the reason the Founders chose a republic rather than a democracy.

Jim, I understand very well your objections to private ownership of certain weapons. But, even though you have not given any credence to it, the expressed reason for the second ammendment was none of the things you cite. You are, apparently, reluctant to include that reason in what you consider a "serious discussion."
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:15 PM   #93
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,234
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
The thing that I argue with that video is that we all know an Ar-15 is not really a hunting riffle. What deer hunter needs more than 10 rounds to down a deer? I don't hunt, but I would think a skilled hunter would only need to have 3 bullets.

The true love for the AR-15 is its fun to shoot and people want one because other people have them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
See this is what I mean, lack of knowledge. Just because the gun can accept different magazines doesn't mean that it cant be used for hunting. It is quite often used for predator control, and yes you can hunt deer with it in states where rifle hunting is legal. Again since you don't hunt deer you have no idea what you are talking about. Now Just so we are clear the 2nd amendment is not about hunting rifles. So please go educate yourself a little.

Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:15 PM   #94
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
For 30 grand? I think you're missing the point.

Correction, I think you just made Jim's point!

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:20 PM   #95
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpecialist View Post
Now Just so we are clear the 2nd amendment is not about hunting rifles.
I thought it was about the shooter and not the weapon. We've also established that any gun in the right hands is deadly.

So why should there be a difference?

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:23 PM   #96
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,234
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Then please enlighten me. If the weapon plays no role in the outcome, why did all those cops (who have standard issue handguns) run into that school with rifles? How come when I was with the USMC, I never once told my gyus to leave their rifles back at base and just bring handguns?

The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?

The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.

How is that wrong?
Since 9-11 and the LA bank heist most police departments have issued patrol rifles or carbines with homeland security money so that the cops are never outgunned again. That said if you were in your house and an armed intruder broke in, with say a shotgun, you would be more comfortable going up against him with a pistol? I know I would want a semi automatic carbine made for CQB, the best chance for myself and my family to survive. This is why they went into the school with "rifles" up against a "kook" armed with pistols.

Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:32 PM   #97
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,234
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Hold on! You have repeatedly denied that rifles are going to result in more deaths than handguns. Therefore, you are denying a tactical advantage to using rifles. In that case, why would the cops be "out-gunned" with pistols?

You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
You absolutely can in instances where one party is armed and the other is not, such as Newtown.

BTW the media falsely reported that he used the bushmaster, it was found in the trunk of the car, he used 4 handguns to kill 20 something people, now what do you say about that?


He killed all of them with handguns, and the medical examiner either has no idea what he is talking about, or has a bull#^&#^&#^&#^& political agenda


Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:38 PM   #98
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpecialist View Post
BTW the media falsely reported that he used the bushmaster, it was found in the trunk of the car, he used 4 handguns to kill 20 something people, now what do you say about that?


He killed all of them with handguns, and the medical examiner either has no idea what he is talking about, or has a bull#^&#^&#^&#^& political agenda

I've been trying to find anything aside from this video to confirm the claim. It's impossible to get any concrete info from media sources (I refuse to call them news outlets) that are constantly pushing an agenda. I, too, have heard that the Bushmaster was found in the car, but I have also heard it was a pump shotgun in the car, and he brought the Bushmaster and two pistols into the school.

On scene, it's quite easy to know the difference. Either they found .223 casings all over the place or they didn't. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a reliable source through Google.
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:44 PM   #99
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,234
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
And finally somebody hits the nail on the head. The violence that has resulted from societal issues combined with the proliferation of hand guns is by far the much more serious problem. Some argue it's a racial issue that's ignored because the majority of victims and perps are black.

Incidents of mass shootings tend to involve mental health issues combined with assault weapons if not hand guns. I don't see how anyone can refute Jim's point that an assault weapon as defined under the 1994 law isn't more deadly. They don't just "look scary" their characteristics were designed with a specific purpose. Perhaps it's the line drawn in the sand that's the issue. Is it arbitrary? Does that really make a difference?

Jim made a number of good points in the post above. The most important being, why can't there be a rational discussion on the subject that doesn't fall back on an absolute belief that's fuzzy at best?

I'm certainly not for banning all guns and have no problem with responsible hand gun owners, but the stats on gun violence in our country put us alongside a list of unsavory nations. More guns isn't the answer, there's a huge difference between a concealed carry for personal protection (when justified) and vigilante justice.

As an aside, The Specialist's story about the three load limit for duck hunting was ironic as it was citing a federal law that restricts the use of firearms

-spence
Ok schools is in:

Here in lies the problem, in the south, for the most part you can buy a gun, any handgun with a drivers license. So some people buy a bunch and remove the serial numbers, then they come up to NY, Boston, Hartford< Chicago and such under the guise of visiting relatives, only to hook up with their "Homies" and sell the guns illegally. I see it all of the time. This is what is called a straw buyer, now knowing this how would you fix it. An AWB will do nothing.

This is how I would handle it:

Force all states to require a permitting system for the purchase of all firearms.

Require background checks, and safety courses to all who apply

Require that all sales have an instant background check.

Require all private sales to be done at a gun shop, so that an FA 10 form and background check are done first.

Track all large purchaser of firearms, IE some buys 3-10 guns a month or a week and they are not a dealer, then maybe a spot inspection at their residence to rquire that they produce all of the firearms.

Any state that refuses loses all highway safety funding, and public roadway funding until it is implemented.

Now you will have eliminated a large chunk of illegal guns.

Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:46 PM   #100
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,234
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
I've been trying to find anything aside from this video to confirm the claim. It's impossible to get any concrete info from media sources (I refuse to call them news outlets) that are constantly pushing an agenda. I, too, have heard that the Bushmaster was found in the car, but I have also heard it was a pump shotgun in the car, and he brought the Bushmaster and two pistols into the school.

On scene, it's quite easy to know the difference. Either they found .223 casings all over the place or they didn't. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a reliable source through Google.
I wonder why ? NBC is not exactly a gun loving station like say Fox news, and I have been searching for it too. I think the Newtown chief is waiting for the entire investigation to be complete before he releases any details. This was leaked by the Feds supposedly. The medical examiner is a dope...

Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:49 PM   #101
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,234
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I thought it was about the shooter and not the weapon. We've also established that any gun in the right hands is deadly.

So why should there be a difference?

-spence
You see there is no difference, we want any gun we can have, just like you guys wan your 900 VanStaal reels

Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 06:51 PM   #102
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
I'd agree, and perhaps even require ballistics with weapons registrations. You could also require reregistration after 3-5 years.

Unfortunately, none of this is permitted under the Constitution.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 07:08 PM   #103
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpecialist View Post
You see there is no difference, we want any gun we can have, just like you guys wan your 900 VanStaal reels
I only have one Van Staal. Good thing you didn't ask about English handmade shoes

This Christmas I gifted myself a nice SOG tactical knife. Opens and closes as fast as a switch blade. I didn't even realize it when I bought it that it's illegal to carry in RI due to the size.

Oh well, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 07:11 PM   #104
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,234
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I'd agree, and perhaps even require ballistics with weapons registrations. You could also require reregistration after 3-5 years.

Unfortunately, none of this is permitted under the Constitution.

-spence
In Massachusetts every gun you own is on a list at the Department of public safety. Ballistic databases won't work because there are too many variables....


New National Database Of Ballistic Markings From Guns Not Recommended

Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 07:12 PM   #105
TheSpecialist
Hardcore Equipment Tester
iTrader: (0)
 
TheSpecialist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Abington, MA
Posts: 6,234
Blog Entries: 1
Lawbreaker......


Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I only have one Van Staal. Good thing you didn't ask about English handmade shoes

This Christmas I gifted myself a nice SOG tactical knife. Opens and closes as fast as a switch blade. I didn't even realize it when I bought it that it's illegal to carry in RI due to the size.

Oh well, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

-spence

Bent Rods and Screaming Reels!

Spot NAZI
TheSpecialist is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 07:16 PM   #106
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

"If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. "

Wrong. You need to read what I'm actually saying. It isn't only about reducing deaths. It's about reducing deaths in accordance with our constitution. That's a big difference. I'm not saying that any ban that reduces deaths is good. I'm saying that if it's not trampling the constitution, let's talk about it.

Sure, let's talk about it. But first, we have to establish which Constitution you're talking about. The original one, or the "living, breathing one" that has replaced it. I don't particularly like the new one, so I don't refer to it when I refer to the Constitution. If you prefer the "living breathing" one, then you are absolutely correct. The Federal Government, according to the "living" Constitution can, in reality, do whatever it wants. And all your logic about reducing deaths according to that Constitution can pretty much remove all "arms" from the people.

Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional. What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?

According to the "living breathing" Constitution, there is no problem extending the ban to all magazines and the guns that use them. The modern, progressive, jurists and politicians just don't see a "need" for any part of the second amendment since they don't see themselves or the government as a threat to the people. The British are no longer a threat, history has arrived at a time of universal understanding of human rights and social justice. Government need not be impeded from doing everything to efficiently administer society's needs including its safety. So there is no real "need" for civil ownership of guns.

"Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count."

If it increases the potential body count, it certainly increases the danger to society as a whole. I'm shocked you'd miss that.

I didn't miss the danger inherent in guns. The danger I speak of is qualitative. The quality of one death is not diminished by that of a hundred. It holds all the personal tragedy in one soul that is contained in the collective tragedy of a hundred. The danger you speak of is quantitative. The greater the number the greater the danger. For you, apparently, numbers are more important. If so, than you seem to miss that the vast number of gun related deaths are commited with the type of gun you deem less dangerous.

"I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids"

Why, then, are families of victims so often leading the charge to ban military-style weapons? If what you say is correct (that they don't care about any other kids), and their kid is already dead, why should they give a rat's azz. Wow. You're saying that parents who lost their kids, have zero vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen to someone else's kid. That's one of the stranger things I have seen you post. I could not disagree more.

Then you disagree with your version of what I said. You do have that habit of exaggeration. But I understand where you're coming from so I don't fault you on that. I didn't say they don't care about other kids. I was referring to your version of "danger" and the personal danger perceived by those involved in mass shootings. It's not that they don't care about other kids, it's that the overwhelming fear is first for their own. The personal, single grief, if their child was lost, and the single relief if they survived. Sure, there is room for concern for others, but, unless I'm weirder than I thought, that doesn't equal, for most people, concern for their own. Do you think that parents are less concerned with the danger of a kook with a handgun roaming the halls of their children's schools than they are with a kook with a high capacity weapon. Do you think they feel safer with him carrying one type of gun than another?

I survived a war. Using your logic, I have no reason to be concerned about what happens when other teenagers are sent into compat? I have no reasons to call for rules to help future soldiers? That's what you think?

Seems unbelievably self-centered to me.
No, you don't use my logic or the Constitution that I prefer. And, I can understand how soldiers view body counts as being crucial to winning, and by winning, how lives can be "saved." And I don't mean to say even a single death is emotionally acceptable on the battlefield.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-03-2013 at 07:32 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 07:17 PM   #107
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpecialist View Post
Lawbreaker......
Only if I decide to carry it. Legal to own

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 07:25 PM   #108
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I'd agree, and perhaps even require ballistics with weapons registrations. You could also require reregistration after 3-5 years.

Unfortunately, none of this is permitted under the Constitution.

-spence
How does the Constitution stop states from such regulations?
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 07:33 PM   #109
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
How does the Constitution stop states from such regulations?
I believe in reading his post he a) made a statement of why lax or inconsistent state laws are a big part of the hand gun problem in cities and b) how a Federal law could help remedy.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 07:44 PM   #110
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I believe in reading his post he a) made a statement of why lax or inconsistent state laws are a big part of the hand gun problem in cities and b) how a Federal law could help remedy.

-spence
The Constitution does not require the states to be lax, nor does it stop them from having similar regulations. The problem with Federal laws solving state problems is that it makes states irrelevant. It tends to destroy the whole concept of federalism and of a republic. It constantly encroaches on constitutionalism (all of the above which I assume is OK with you?). And the problem with Federally mandated uniformity as a one-size-fits-all solution is the destruction also of the states as laboratories of experiment. Some may come up with better solutions to a problem than others, and the rest may adapt the solution or even improve on it. When the Federal Government regulates, its solution has no competition and becomes far more frozen in time.
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 07:46 PM   #111
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
The Constitution does not require the states to be lax, nor does it stop them from having similar regulations. The problem with Federal laws solving state problems is that it makes states irrelevant. It tends to destroy the whole concept of federalism and of a republic. It constantly encroaches on constitutionalism (all of the above which I assume is OK with you?). And the problem with Federally mandated uniformity as a one-size-fits-all solution is the destruction also of the states as laboratories of experiment. Some may come up with better solutions to a problem than others, and the rest may adapt the solution or even improve on it. When the Federal Government regulates, its solution has no competition and becomes far more frozen in time.
If someone buys a large number of hand guns down south to then sell them illegally in a more lucrative market up north how is this an isolated "state" problem?

Not even sure it's a Second Amendment issue any more.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 07:52 PM   #112
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If someone buys a large number of hand guns down south to then sell them illegally in a more lucrative market up north how is this an isolated "state" problem?

Not even sure it's a Second Amendment issue any more.

-spence
No it is not a Second Amendment issue. What I was questioning is your comment that none of this was permitted by the Constitution.
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-03-2013, 10:06 PM   #113
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Hold on! You have repeatedly denied that rifles are going to result in more deaths than handguns. Therefore, you are denying a tactical advantage to using rifles. In that case, why would the cops be "out-gunned" with pistols?

You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
I'm sure this is been answered already Jim and you know the answer.
Rifles are a better weapon at longer ranges
Hand guns are a close proximity weapon
Cops entering a building to engage a man with a weapon don't intend to shoot him from close proximity .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline  
Old 01-04-2013, 01:03 PM   #114
JohnnyD
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
JohnnyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
I found this to be a pretty interesting read...
America has an As#$%@ Problem
JohnnyD is offline  
Old 01-04-2013, 01:45 PM   #115
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
Cops entering a building to engage a man with a weapon don't intend to shoot him from close proximity .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Really?

JimCT...
what weapon did you guys carry when clearing rooms/buildings during your tours? I assume that was quite often close quarters...

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline  
Old 01-04-2013, 01:52 PM   #116
RIJIMMY
sick of bluefish
iTrader: (1)
 
RIJIMMY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 8,672
interesting thread so far and some good points made. Its intersting given that I live in gun heaven. I find myself going through the bass pro and cabelas adds drooling over all kinds of combat style rifles for the very reason Nebe highlights, they're cool and I would love to mess around with them. I've never owned a gun and dont trust having one in the house. I was in cabelas last week and they have a specialty room with high value weapons, they had this sick looking rifle, very modern looking. I asked and its a 50 cal. rifle, military use them for sniper rifles and the guy said each bullet is $7 a shot to fire! Crazy but very cool. I can understand both sides to this argument. I dont see how banning high capacity magazines would be an issue, i think thats a good thing.
For the newtown shootings I have repeatadly read that he had 2 pistols and an AR. In the car was a shotgun. The amount of rounds he fired (11 in one baby) would be a challenge with 2 pistols. I am pretty certain of this.

making s-b.com a kinder, gentler place for all
RIJIMMY is offline  
Old 01-04-2013, 01:56 PM   #117
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Really?

JimCT...
what weapon did you guys carry when clearing rooms/buildings during your tours? I assume that was quite often close quarters...
I guess I should have stated that a rifle would be better in multiple situations where a hand gun is not .
And don't forget the intimidation factor... They look scary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline  
Old 01-04-2013, 04:07 PM   #118
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
I found this to be a pretty interesting read...
America has an As#$%@ Problem
Good article. Maybe a bit too rational to be included in "serious" or "reasonable" discussion.
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-05-2013, 09:09 AM   #119
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

This Christmas I gifted myself a nice SOG tactical knife. Opens and closes as fast as a switch blade. I didn't even realize it when I bought it that it's illegal to carry in RI due to the size.

-spence
Oh great...just what America needs...another nutjob with an Assault Knife....what are you going to do with that thing?...open oysters?.....throw it at trees and squirrels in your backyard and try to get the right end to stick in?.......next Christmas you might ask Santa for a Ninja outfit and a pair of Nunchucks to complete the ensemble
scottw is offline  
Old 01-05-2013, 03:56 PM   #120
ReelinRod
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
ReelinRod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Upper Bucks County PA
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to keep and bar arms does not in any manner depend on the 2nd Amendment for its existence. The reason why the citizen possesses the right to arms is because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. It is a pre-existing, fully retained, fundamental right and as such, any law challenged as being a violation of the right is presumed unconstitutional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and mortars is not a violation of that clause.
You shouldn't be so cock-sure . . . Many, many, many laws stand now as "presumptively lawful" as they have not yet been challenged under Heller (2008). For 70 years laws were upheld using the lower federal court "militia right" or "state's right" or generic "collective right" inventions / mutations / perversions that were invalidated by the Supreme Court in Heller.

Also, many also were upheld pre-McDonald (2010) because it was held that the federal 2nd Amendment did not impede state legislatures (also a legal doctrine now invalidated).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I feel one could make a compelling case that banning things like high-capacity magazines (or anything else designed for military capacity, not civilian use) is similar.
Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual' arms. But . . . government does not get to begin its action presuming the arm is "dangerous and unusual" because it doesn't think the citizens have any good reason to own it, or it isn't used in hunting (i.e., the present idiotic "Assault Weapons" ban hoopla).

The Supreme Court in 1939 established the criteria for courts (and presumably legislatures ) to determine if an arm is afforded 2nd Amendment protection.

If the type of arm meets any one of them then it cannot be deemed 'dangerous and unusual' and the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and any authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use is repelled.

Those criteria state that to be protected by the 2nd Amendment the arm must be:
  • A type in common use at the present time and/or
  • A type usually employed in civilized warfare / that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
  • A type that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

Failing ALL those tests, the arm could then and only then be argued to be "dangerous and unusual" and the government would be permitted to argue that a legitimate power to restrict that type of arm should be afforded .


"Dangerous and Unusual" is what's left after the protection criteria are all applied and all fail . . . Think of it as legal Scrapple . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I agree that banning rifles that look scary, but in fact operate exactly like a small-game hunting rifle, is not accomplishing much.
That seems to be much more than Feinstein and Biden are willing to stipulate. Thanks a lot . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I'm talking about banning things that are significantly more lethal, yet which serve no significant need except to make guys with small wee-wees feel macho enough.
Well, if anything really speaks to a mature and reasoned discussion it is ^that^.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
The type of ban I'm talking about might not have had any impact to the Newtown tragedy. But it might help mitigate the next one.
You "might" want to learn about fundamental rights and strict scrutiny. You "might" learn that "might" isn't part of the mix. . . .



You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
ReelinRod is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com