WTF? (**NSFW**)

[tac airlifter]

18 minutes ago, Prozac said:

 Putting weapons meant for the battlefield in the hands of civilian citizens crosses that line for many. 

Is a semi-auto AR a weapon meant for the battlefield?

[Stoker]

20 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Question:  should we not regulate the purchase of weapons at all?  Should Joe citizen have access to, say, a TOW missile launcher?  For that matter, should we regulate anything?  I guess in the ultimate manifestation of liberty everything would be legal.  Hard drugs? Crack? Have at it. Meth? Knock yourself out.  Reality dictates that in any civilized society, there is some trade off between liberty and security.  Putting weapons meant for the battlefield in the hands of civilian citizens crosses that line for many. 

My thought is that Americans should be able to freely buy any weapon in use by their local / state police department. Police weapons are (theoretically) solely for self-defense, which means anything they're issued has a legitimate self-defense purpose. If California thinks that scary-looking semi-automatic rifles have no self-defense use and wants to ban them, they can explain that to their local police unions. Likewise, if New York thinks a seven-round magazine is perfectly acceptable for self-defense, then there's no reason the NYPD should have standard-capacity fifteen-round magazines in their service pistols (given NYPD's issues with shooting everyone and everything but the target they're aiming at, this would probably save quite a few innocent bystanders).

[Prozac]

16 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Is a semi-auto AR a weapon meant for the battlefield?

Valid question.  Invariably there will be arguments falling on either side. My own view is that magazine size is the more relevant measure.  Again, though, there will be differing opinions on where you draw the line. I may argue that 10 rounds should be the limit. You may argue for 30. Someone else may say there should be no limit.  Ultimately, I believe there should be a line drawn somewhere. Where that line should be will always be up for debate. 

[Prozac]

18 minutes ago, sforron said:

My thought is that Americans should be able to freely buy any weapon in use by their local / state police department. Police weapons are (theoretically) solely for self-defense, which means anything they're issued has a legitimate self-defense purpose. If California thinks that scary-looking semi-automatic rifles have no self-defense use and wants to ban them, they can explain that to their local police unions. Likewise, if New York thinks a seven-round magazine is perfectly acceptable for self-defense, then there's no reason the NYPD should have standard-capacity fifteen-round magazines in their service pistols (given NYPD's issues with shooting everyone and everything but the target they're aiming at, this would probably save quite a few innocent bystanders).

Ok, I see the logic in your argument but let me ask you this:  Should people who buy those weapons be held to the same standards as police officers?  Police are trained in the use and safe handling of their weapons.  (Your point about the NYPD notwithstanding) They are expected to maintain some level of proficiency. They are trained extensively in the legal ramifications of discharging a weapon in public. They undergo background checks and regular drug tests.  Unless you hold people to the same standards as police, I just don't see this as a valid argument.

[Warrior]

16 hours ago, M2 said:

I am not going to try to "match wits" with the 40lb brain stems on here discussing Constitutional law, all I can share is that 1) I can kill someone with a rock, so does that mean we have to outlaw rocks?  2) we not only didn't lose rights during the eight years of the Obama administration, but actually gained them; so my prediction is that absolutely nothing in terms of firearms restrictions will come from this Vegas tragedy and rightfully so, 3) it is not surprising that the kooks are coming out of the woodwork anytime an incident involving a firearm occurs, it is what their idiotic contingents expand and actually demand, and lastly, 4) good luck trying to pull an Australia in Texas...this is our governor!


We don't fuck around when it comes to our firearms, BBQ, religion or football!
 

I'm from Texas and while I'd love to agree with you with Republicans like this...I don't know what to say other than if you want to ban it for yourself then don't fucking buy it.

 

Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), a gun owner himself, may be the first Republican in Congress to call for a ban on bump stocks.

“I think they should be banned. There’s no reason for a typical gun owner to own anything that converts a semi-automatic to something that behaves like an automatic,” Flores told The Hill in an interview just off the House floor.

“Based on the videos I heard and saw, and now that I’ve studied up on what a bump stock is — I didn’t know there was such a thing — there’s no reason for it,” Flores said.

“I have no problem from banning myself from owning it.”

[Warrior]

22 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Ok, I see the logic in your argument but let me ask you this:  Should people who buy those weapons be held to the same standards as police officers?  Police are trained in the use and safe handling of their weapons.  (Your point about the NYPD notwithstanding) They are expected to maintain some level of proficiency. They are trained extensively in the legal ramifications of discharging a weapon in public. They undergo background checks and regular drug tests.  Unless you hold people to the same standards as police, I just don't see this as a valid argument.

Invalid comparison because cops have a duty to protect others.  I'm pretty sure there's case law saying they don't have to park in front of your house because you think you've been threatened, but my point is that while we have a duty to retreat (depending on state) they do not.

You have to take driver's ed before you can get a driver's license.  Driving is not a right, but driver's ed is (or at least used to be - no idea on current HS curriculum) taught in schools.

Gun ownership is a right. I'd love to see some NRA Eddie the Eagle stuff taught in public schools.  You want to do something for the children? Then teach them how to use them safely.  

 

[Orbit]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Question:  should we not regulate the purchase of weapons at all?  Should Joe citizen have access to, say, a TOW missile launcher?  For that matter, should we regulate anything?  I guess in the ultimate manifestation of liberty everything would be legal.  Hard drugs? Crack? Have at it. Meth? Knock yourself out.  Reality dictates that in any civilized society, there is some trade off between liberty and security.  Putting weapons meant for the battlefield in the hands of civilian citizens crosses that line for many. 

Amend the Constitution then.  Any law the prohibits a citizen from owning "Arms" is unconstitutional. 

 

[Stoker]

59 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Ok, I see the logic in your argument but let me ask you this:  Should people who buy those weapons be held to the same standards as police officers?  Police are trained in the use and safe handling of their weapons.  (Your point about the NYPD notwithstanding) They are expected to maintain some level of proficiency. They are trained extensively in the legal ramifications of discharging a weapon in public. They undergo background checks and regular drug tests.  Unless you hold people to the same standards as police, I just don't see this as a valid argument.

The level of firearms proficiency required by police officers is pretty minimal, and is usually (always?) mandated by liability-insurance -driven departmental regulations rather than actual force of law. I don't believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate safety classes for firearms any more than it allows the government to mandate safety classes before you can print a newspaper or post on a blog. As far as legal ramifications of discharging a weapon in public, I guarantee you that a police officer is always going to be held to a lesser standard than the average citizen for firing a gun. Practically, if we allowed states and municipalities to require "common sense" training requirements, you'd have places like Chicago saying, "Sure, you can have/carry a pistol, you just need to hit three bullseyes on the target with a pistol, and the target is on the dark side of the moon."

22 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Invalid comparison because cops have a duty to protect others.  I'm pretty sure there's case law saying they don't have to park in front of your house because you think you've been threatened, but my point is that while we have a duty to retreat (depending on state) they do not.

Warren v. District of Columbia said that the police have absolutely no duty to protect individuals. In the case in question, they were called repeatedly about an ongoing gang rape, showed up multiple times, and left with no resolution after knocking on the door and getting no response.

[Warrior]

Copy shot.  I'll go back to my beer with Hacker and stop attempting to argue constitutional law

[HossHarris]

And I think duty to retreat is limited to just a few far left states. 

 

Its the exception, not the rule. 

 

There are several states that allow use of force to protect PROPERTY not just life. (I.e. I can just shoot you for trying to steal my car out of my driveway)

Edited October 5, 2017 by HossHarris

[M2]

 

[Hacker]

6 hours ago, Prozac said:

Putting weapons meant for the battlefield in the hands of civilian citizens crosses that line for many. 

Every firearm ever invented is a "weapon meant for the battlefield".

"Grandpa's hunting rifle" was a front-line infantry weapon less than 100 years ago used by doughboys to liberate Europe.

This is a loosey-goosey emotional argument, not a logical one.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Hacker

[Hacker]

5 hours ago, Prozac said:

Should people who buy those weapons be held to the same standards as police officers?  Police are trained in the use and safe handling of their weapons.  (Your point about the NYPD notwithstanding) They are expected to maintain some level of proficiency. They are trained extensively in the legal ramifications of discharging a weapon in public. They undergo background checks and regular drug tests.  Unless you hold people to the same standards as police, I just don't see this as a valid argument.

There are not two classes of citizens in the United States.

We are all equal...and all worthy of the same rights, privileges, and restrictions under the law.  Police are not "super-citizens".

[Hacker]

6 hours ago, Prozac said:

. I may argue that 10 rounds should be the limit. You may argue for 30. Someone else may say there should be no limit.  Ultimately, I believe there should be a line drawn somewhere. Where that line should be will always be up for debate. 

This is precisely why there are Constitutional protections -- so that the differing whims of men can't be used to arbitrarily decide these things for the rest of the citizenry.

[Hacker]

For those who want to play the "civilians should not have military-grade weapons" game, I suggest you go download the SCOTUS case US V Miller and see what it says the 2A protects.

[Stoker]

46 minutes ago, Hacker said:

For those who want to play the "civilians should not have military-grade weapons" game, I suggest you go download the SCOTUS case US V Miller and see what it says the 2A protects.

That case is a wonderful example of why the Supreme Court should not be treated as some sort of "legislature of last resort," because they generally lack technical knowledge and don't have the power to consider testimony by experts (because, theoretically they're an appellate court). In Miller, the Court decided it was OK to ban short-barreled shotguns, because they had no military use, despite the War Department issuing 40,000 of them just two decades prior for trench fighting.

People who want gun bans need to start a movement to repeal the Second Amendment, not see it invalidated in court. But that would be horrifically unpopular, so they try to backdoor it through training requirements, "genuine need," lawsuits against gun manufacturers, etc.

[ATIS]

How about a little good news when it comes to gun laws and the Constitution. (And good news for some of us that live here). 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-will-not-appeal-gun-law-to-supreme-court/2017/10/05/e0e7c054-a9d0-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.3bc77fae837d

ATIS

[FourFans]

9 hours ago, Hacker said:

loosey-goosey

Your terminology invalidated your arguments.  Only grandparents and M2 spout phrases like that.

[Smokin]

23 hours ago, Prozac said:

Ok, I see the logic in your argument but let me ask you this:  Should people who buy those weapons be held to the same standards as police officers?  Police are trained in the use and safe handling of their weapons.  (Your point about the NYPD notwithstanding) They are expected to maintain some level of proficiency. They are trained extensively in the legal ramifications of discharging a weapon in public. They undergo background checks and regular drug tests.  Unless you hold people to the same standards as police, I just don't see this as a valid argument.

Almost every time I have done the M9 requal shoot, there have been cops there doing their same YEARLY qualification shoot.  Not a single time has any cop there shot better than I did and I'm a decent shot, but I'm not going to go win any 3-gun competition by any means.  Granted these are AF cops, but I've also been at private ranges with civil police and the same general rule has applied.  I think the average person would be shocked at the most police departments shooting requirements.

[uhhello]

2 hours ago, Smokin said:

Almost every time I have done the M9 requal shoot, there have been cops there doing their same YEARLY qualification shoot.  Not a single time has any cop there shot better than I did and I'm a decent shot, but I'm not going to go win any 3-gun competition by any means.  Granted these are AF cops, but I've also been at private ranges with civil police and the same general rule has applied.  I think the average person would be shocked at the most police departments shooting requirements.

Cops are Arming Group A so they shoot twice a year on primary weapons.  That doesn't make it any better. 

[HossHarris]

Police are generally a cross section of society. Some are gun nuts, some aren’t. Some are downright anti-gun. 

[matmacwc]

1 hour ago, HossHarris said:

Some are downright anti-gun. 

For everyone else.

[HossHarris]

12 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

For everyone else.

No, In total. Like bobbies with batons anti-gun

Edited October 6, 2017 by HossHarris

[HU&W]

Proactive legislation during the Republican super majority is different than ignoring the conversation until the Democrats regain their own super majority.

I'd like to see the NFA updated to have the Hughes amendment removed, gat crank and bump stock classified as automatic modifications (not banned, but with SBR/silencer type restrictions), and national basic requirements for CHL with nationwide reciprocity.

[Hacker]

...because if we just sacrifice "bump stocks" at the altar of gun control, that'll be it and they'll never be back for more, right?