gun control rant thread

In reply to barrowcadbury:

Constitution VS Code

In reply to Beer Baron: Cue the tank police chase video.......perfect example of being able to "secure" things.....

That said, idk many who are arguing for tanks......even though there is a guy local who owns an Abrams.....

Beer Baron wrote: Okay, so someone will probably argue then that the civilian population *should* have access to those weapons: bombs, tanks, guided explosives, and attack aircraft.

Why not?

You give a reason:

Beer Baron said: Let's go back to the "well regulated" part with the definition of "operated and functioning properly". For those things to be operated properly, takes a lot of practice and space. A civilian shouldn't own a tank and shells not because they shouldn't be able to fight the government, but because there is no practical way to use them without endangering citizenry around them. This means that your right to own and operate these things is trumped by the more fundamental rights of the people around you. The standing military has the space to train properly, and also the resources to secure that armament when it is not in use.

But man is that a weak argument. To use a commonly used analogy, why should a civilian be able to own high-performance cars?

I find your "government knows best" mindset terrifying.

Beer Baron said: It all comes down to, your rights end when they are liable to have a significant, negative impact on the greater right of someone else.

Private ownership of bombs, tanks, guided explosives, and attack aircraft does not have a significant, negative impact on the rights of someone else. Your argument fails your own test.

Or you could just propose laws like Sen Meyer in CT:

General Assembly

Proposed Bill No. 122

January Session, 2013

LCO No. 543

Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY

Introduced by:

SEN. MEYER, 12th Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING RESTRICTIONS ON GUN USE.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and law enforcement personnel and certain gun clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a gun containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a gun made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round.

Statement of Purpose:

To reduce the use of guns for criminal purposes.

rainydave wrote: Or you could just propose laws like Sen Meyer in CT: General Assembly Proposed Bill No. 122 January Session, 2013 LCO No. 543 Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY Introduced by: SEN. MEYER, 12th Dist. AN ACT CONCERNING RESTRICTIONS ON GUN USE. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: That the general statutes be amended to establish a class C felony offense, except for certain military and law enforcement personnel and certain gun clubs, for (1) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate, transport, possess or use any gun except one made to fire a single round, (2) any person to fire a gun containing more than a single round, (3) any person or organization to receive from another state, territory or country a gun made to fire multiple rounds, or (4) any person or organization to purchase, sell, donate or possess a magazine or clip capable of holding more than one round. Statement of Purpose: To reduce the use of guns for criminal purposes.

OMG!!!

figured this should go here ....

Gun Control. It already has started at Cabela's

There was a bit of confusion at the Cabela’s Sporting Goods store this morning.

When I was ready to pay for my purchases of gun powder and bullets the cashier said, "Strip down, facing me."

Making a mental note to complain to the NRA about the gun registry people running amok, I did just as she had instructed.

When the hysterical shrieking and alarms finally subsided, I found out that she was referring to my credit card.

I have been asked to shop elsewhere in the future.

They need to make their instructions to us seniors a little clearer!

I look at it this way.. when somebody can give me the exact defination of what this means:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

we can have a proper discourse on what to do about it.. because to be honest, even the courts can't define what a well regulated Militia is or how the right to keep and bear arms relates to it.

mad_machine wrote: I look at it this way.. when somebody can give me the exact defination of what this means:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

we can have a proper discourse on what to do about it.. because to be honest, even the courts can't define what a well regulated Militia is or how the right to keep and bear arms relates to it.

Lots of people can give you an exact definition. They will just not all be the same definition.

The Federalist Papers outline the structure of the proposed militia and the intent of the Second Amendment. The militia is explicitly a government-regulated entity with government-approved and appointed membership and leadership. It is made eminently clear by the framers that they do not intend for the Second Amendment to be a means by which individuals can resist a corrupt or oppressive government and in a rather colorful way describes the way in which individuals trying to do so will be crushed, and in #28 Hamilton says that fear of the government raising an army to oppress the people "may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning."

From #29: "It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."

"Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

Osterkraut wrote: But man is that a weak argument. To use a commonly used analogy, why should a civilian be able to own high-performance cars? I find your "government knows best" mindset terrifying.

I am not saying the "government knows best". I am saying the government has more resources (money to acquire weapons, space to practice with them, and time to train people in their use) than civilians ever will. The weapons a civilian could conceivably acquire and train with just don't hold up.

A civilian can use a high powered car because it is possible to operate it at less than full capacity. If you want to operate a high-powered vehicle to the limits of its capabilities in a safe, responsible, and legal manner, your only option is to go to a designated space where you do not put other people at risk.

Max_Archer wrote: From #29: "It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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." "Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security."

So if I may paraphrase, "People who might be called upon to serve the defense of the nation should be kept in practice of operating arms and following basic military drills. That way, when people are needed to defend the country, they know at least some of what they hell they need to be doing already."

And honestly, that is why EVERYONE should spend 2 years in the military (unless medically unfit) upon graduation or leaving High School.

Beer Baron wrote: I am not saying the "government knows best". I am saying the government has more resources (money to acquire weapons, space to practice with them, and time to train people in their use) than civilians ever will. The weapons a civilian could conceivably acquire and train with just don't hold up.

Dude, that's exactly government knows best!

Beer Baron wrote:

Osterkraut wrote: But man is that a weak argument. To use a commonly used analogy, why should a civilian be able to own high-performance cars? I find your "government knows best" mindset terrifying.

A civilian can use a high powered car because it is possible to operate it at less than full capacity. If you want to operate a high-powered vehicle to the limits of its capabilities in a safe, responsible, and legal manner, your only option is to go to a designated space where you do not put other people at risk.

It's completely possible to operate a tank, or a fighter jet at less than full capacity... and it would be entirely possible to operate them at full capacity in a location that doesn't put other people at risk.

Come on man, they're not binary devices!

Osterkraut wrote: It's completely possible to operate a tank, or a fighter jet at less than full capacity... and it would be entirely possible to operate them at full capacity in a location that doesn't put other people at risk.

Indeed. As I mentioned earlier, someone who used to be a member of our car club had a tank in the past. He used to drive it to car shows....had to let the police know in advance, but yes, he used to drive it on the street.

JoeyM wrote:

Osterkraut wrote: It's completely possible to operate a tank, or a fighter jet at less than full capacity... and it would be entirely possible to operate them at full capacity in a location that doesn't put other people at risk.

Indeed. As I mentioned earlier, someone who used to be a member of our car club had a tank in the past. He used to drive it to car shows....had to let the police know in advance, but yes, he used to drive it on the street.

If you use the quote; "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins," you inherently approve the civilian ownership of anything up to weapons of mass destruction, arms that can't be employed without extremely high risk. There's nothing freedom-limiting stemming from private ownership of, say, a MiG-29. Now, it's quite freedom-limiting to KILL someone with a MiG, but murder is, of course, illegal.

Now of course there's the matter of where an arm ends and, say, an airplane begins. Why should the government have a say about what aircraft you can own is also another question.

Osterkraut wrote: There's nothing freedom-limiting stemming from private ownership of, say, a MiG-29. Now, it's quite freedom-limiting to KILL someone with a MiG, but murder is, of course, illegal. Now of course there's the matter of where an arm ends and, say, an airplane begins. Why should the government have a say about what aircraft you can own is also another question.

They allow private ownership of MiG-29s.....Larry Ellison has one. So does Paul Allen of Microsoft. I don't know the history of Larry's plane. This website says that Allen's plane was used in the Russian and Ukrainian airforces before it was imported by Vulcan Warbirds Company. The same site says that Allen also has his own submarine (pleasure craft, non military)

Osterkraut wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: I am not saying the "government knows best". I am saying the government has more resources (money to acquire weapons, space to practice with them, and time to train people in their use) than civilians ever will. The weapons a civilian could conceivably acquire and train with just don't hold up.

Dude, that's exactly government knows best!

No it isn't. No more than "Ken Block knows best" because he has money and time that I do not to buy professionally built rally cars and practice with them. Paris Hilton has more resources than me and certainly doesn't know better.

It's completely possible to operate a tank, or a fighter jet at less than full capacity... and it would be entirely possible to operate them at full capacity in a location that doesn't put other people at risk. Come on man, they're not binary devices!

The vehicles are not binary. The armaments are. I had been referring more to things like the artillery shells for the tank or missiles and bombs for the aircraft. Some guy keeping a sidewinder missile in his garage definitely qualifies as a threat to the neighbors.

Osterkraut wrote: Now of course there's the matter of where an arm ends and, say, an airplane begins. Why should the government have a say about what aircraft you can own is also another question.

It is a very simple one, actually. The use for pretty much all of the airspace in the U.S. has already been defined. Some is military use. Some is protected for environmental reasons. Most is the equivalent of public roads. There are basic restrictions on speed, identification, communication, and other behaviors based on all that.

You can own a MiG and operate it. Not sure about full potential since I don't believe there is any continental civilian airspace where supersonic flight is allowed. You can not upload a MiG with missiles, bombs, and bullets any more than you are allowed to slap .50 cal machine guns on the hood of your car.

mad_machine wrote: I look at it this way.. when somebody can give me the exact defination of what this means:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

we can have a proper discourse on what to do about it.. because to be honest, even the courts can't define what a well regulated Militia is or how the right to keep and bear arms relates to it.

I gave as close as you can get to exact way back on page four and five.

Grizz wrote:

Ian F wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: The Second Amendment Text: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If any of our rights should be infringed upon, so may all the others. Lose one, lose all.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is we can't go back in time and ask the writers what the hell they meant since it can be taken in a few different ways, depending on how a person wants to read it. "Well regulated militia..." or "shall not be infringed." I don't see this debate coming to any sort of conclusion within my lifetime.

It's fairly easy. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. "Well regulated militia" is less so, but still explainable. Regulated referred to training and equipment, and militia is defined as such:

The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

Besides that, the middle bit is the important part,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

is the part that people continue to conveniently forget is there, because there really isn't much room for creative definition.

Grizz wrote:

SVreX wrote: But it also says "the people" shall be "well regulated"...

And as I mentioned, the standard definition for regulated when referring to troops back then involved training or discipline, not rules. Random scheisse I've found with it in context.

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.

The civilians already had better firearms than the military at that time anyway, your average farmer in the days of the founding typically carried a flintlock gun of superior quality and workmanship when compared to muskets that had to be produced en masse in years prior to the industrial revolution. The 2nd Amendment was written when your gun-wielding civilian had the equivalent of an M60 machine gun, and the armies of the world were issued Ruger Mini-14s.

TL:DR version old to new translation: A well trained, disciplined and equipped militia(defined as any citizen not currently serving in the armed forces), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and use any weapon used to defend oneself, shall not be infringed.

BTW, cat's outta the bag....there's no need to regulate magazines
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/defense-distributed-releases-downloadable-printable-30-round-magazine/

Beer Baron wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: I am not saying the "government knows best". I am saying the government has more resources (money to acquire weapons, space to practice with them, and time to train people in their use) than civilians ever will. The weapons a civilian could conceivably acquire and train with just don't hold up.

Dude, that's exactly government knows best!

No it isn't. No more than "Ken Block knows best" because he has money and time that I do not to buy professionally built rally cars and practice with them. Paris Hilton has more resources than me and certainly doesn't know better.

It's completely possible to operate a tank, or a fighter jet at less than full capacity... and it would be entirely possible to operate them at full capacity in a location that doesn't put other people at risk. Come on man, they're not binary devices!

The vehicles are not binary. The armaments are. I had been referring more to things like the artillery shells for the tank or missiles and bombs for the aircraft. Some guy keeping a sidewinder missile in his garage definitely qualifies as a threat to the neighbors.

Sayings "I am saying the government has more resources (money to acquire weapons, space to practice with them, and time to train people in their use) than civilians ever will. The weapons a civilian could conceivably acquire and train with just don't hold up."

IS SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS BETTER. Jesus H. Christ, do I have to break it down Barney-style for you?

An AIM-9 parked in some guys garage no more qualifies as a threat to the neighbors than a propane tank. Missiles just don't self-destruct all willy-nilly, you know.

Beer Baron wrote:

Osterkraut wrote: Now of course there's the matter of where an arm ends and, say, an airplane begins. Why should the government have a say about what aircraft you can own is also another question.

It is a very simple one, actually. The use for pretty much all of the airspace in the U.S. has already been defined. Some is military use. Some is protected for environmental reasons. Most is the equivalent of public roads. There are basic restrictions on speed, identification, communication, and other behaviors based on all that.

OMG, No way?! I fail to see how that has ANY application on the government's say about aircraft ownership though. Again, a topic for another thread, as that's not directly protected by an Amendment (though it is indirectly protected by the 10th).

Beer Baron wrote: You can own a MiG and operate it. Not sure about full potential since I don't believe there is any continental civilian airspace where supersonic flight is allowed. You can not upload a MiG with missiles, bombs, and bullets any more than you are allowed to slap .50 cal machine guns on the hood of your car.

Civilian ownership of ex-warbirds is extremely regulated, why that's stupid is a debate for another thread.

That you can't have a MiG with a functioning weapons loadout IS a topic for this thread, and the fact you cannot clearly flys (pun intended) in the face of both the letter and the intent of the second Amendment. You SHOULD be allowed to slap .50 cal machine guns on the hood of your car... that act is harming exactly no one.

Osterkraut wrote: Civilian ownership of ex-warbirds is extremely regulated, why that's stupid is a debate for another thread. That you can't have a MiG with a functioning weapons loadout IS a topic for this thread, and the fact you cannot clearly flys (pun intended) in the face of both the letter and the intent of the second Amendment. You SHOULD be allowed to slap .50 cal machine guns on the hood of your car... that act is harming exactly no one.

I'll go back to the, "Right to swing your arm ends at my nose," argument. This is incorrect. The right to swing your arm ends when it threatens to contact my nose. The line is crossed as soon as you start to haul your fist back. It ends before damage is done, not after.

You do not have the right to point a weapon at me. "Do not point a weapon at anything you are not prepared to destroy." I do not care if the weapon is not loaded or if you have no intention of pulling the trigger. The act of pointing it in my direction is indication enough that you are prepared to destroy me. You don't get that right. You have the right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the right to bear them in a way that threatens me.

If you slap machine guns on the hood of your car, you are indicating that you are prepared to destroy anything in front of that car. If you arm an aircraft, you are indicating that you are prepared to destroy any item covered by the range of those weapons. That is a threat. You do not have the right to make that threat.

Osterkraut wrote: Sayings "I am saying the government has more resources (money to acquire weapons, space to practice with them, and time to train people in their use) than civilians ever will. The weapons a civilian could conceivably acquire and train with just don't hold up." IS SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS BETTER. Jesus H. Christ, do I have to break it down Barney-style for you?

Apparently. I thought I was saying "Entities with more money have the power to buy things that entities with less money can't afford." Last I checked, money and knowledge are not the same thing. I'm fairly certain I know better than Paris Hilton.

Beer Baron wrote:

Osterkraut wrote: Civilian ownership of ex-warbirds is extremely regulated, why that's stupid is a debate for another thread. That you can't have a MiG with a functioning weapons loadout IS a topic for this thread, and the fact you cannot clearly flys (pun intended) in the face of both the letter and the intent of the second Amendment. You SHOULD be allowed to slap .50 cal machine guns on the hood of your car... that act is harming exactly no one.

I'll go back to the, "Right to swing your arm ends at my nose," argument. This is incorrect. The right to swing your arm ends when it threatens to contact my nose. The line is crossed as soon as you start to haul your fist back. It ends before damage is done, not after. You do not have the right to point a weapon at me. "Do not point a weapon at anything you are not prepared to destroy." I do not care if the weapon is not loaded or if you have no intention of pulling the trigger. The act of pointing it in my direction is indication enough that you are prepared to destroy me. You don't get that right. You have the right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the right to bear them in a way that threatens me. If you slap machine guns on the hood of your car, you are indicating that you are prepared to destroy anything in front of that car. If you arm an aircraft, you are indicating that you are prepared to destroy any item covered by the range of those weapons. That is a threat. You do not have the right to make that threat.

Now see, now we get there: you think possession of a weapon implies a threat. I think a threat requires intent (or gross negligence), which is already illegal.

An armed aircraft, just so you know, is not indicating that it is prepared to destroy anything in range. Your super-smart, well trained, and well funded USAF allows fighter jets to refuel with tankers while armed, I'm sure they're quite interested in keeping those things from getting shot down. The same USAF understands that there's such a thing as friendly intercepts by armed aircraft, threat not implied.