Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

[Swykk]

It was knee jerk. I deleted it because it was in poor taste (and because more details were released that shed more light on the situation) but at least I got the right's reaction to it correct. Being in the NRA's pocket fucked them directly this time. I'm laughing at their response, not at Scalise, for the record.

I think Giffords might point to the Dems' desire to get gun control on the slate for discussion.

I saw several hot takes by right wing gunnuts about Pulse saying "they just needed good guys with guns." Because that is a GREAT SOLUTION THAT WORKS EVERY TIME.

As for the shooter, it seems that maybe Congress trying to muscle a repeal of healthcare without giving a fuck in the least nor disclosing what's in the repeal might've been a bad strategy?

[WorzelG]

Yeah. What seems to be a politically motivated shooting is funny because the people who got shot are basically the victims of their own policy. If they supported the other policy carried by the other party maybe they wouldn't have been shot, and it definitely wouldn't be funny then. It's funny because they basically shot themselves!

Quick, someone get Gabby Giffords and ask her what Dem policy proposals ever have a chance of stopping any of the shootings the policies follow in the wake of.

Maybe we can laugh at the victims of the Orlando shooting too because of their stance on self defense. Because these things are funny guys.

I think you're being a bit po-faced here. Ever heard of laughed at the Darwin Awards emails?

[Swykk]

Okay but in fairness, those guys are trained. That's not a be all end all statement, either because for example, look at all of the inefficient police that have killed unarmed people. They're supposedly trained as well.

[Deepvoid]

3 dead in shooting at UPS facility in San Francisco. Shooter shot himself afterwards.
Tough day in the US.

Fuck ... I promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread anymore.

[theimage13]

"Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!"

-Sen. Rand Paul, June 23 2016

[theimage13]

You don't actually think this goes beyond a shallow quipp, right? I have a funny feeling you do though.... The only thing that draws a parallel here is the phrasing. It's not like one Bernie campaign worker with a gun is an insurrection about to overthrow the government. You'd need a whole lot of people. And that is one of the many things that tempers that process.

You realize that people rally around shallow quips, right? They make for sound bytes, then people buy into them. Hundreds of thousands of people spent last summer screaming "lock her up", dressing in prison jumpsuits, and making an entire line of "Hilary for Prison" merchandise based on a shallow quip.

One - especially a person in a political leadership position - does not get to suggest shooting government agents and then go "haha jk guys don't b so serious".

[Wolfkiller]

Edit: Didn't see this was already posted in the Random news thread.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...tival-shooting

A gunman who fired upon thousands of people attending a music festival on the Las Vegas Strip has killed more than 50 people and wounded more than 200, police say. Two of the dead are believed to be off-duty police officers who were attending the concert. The suspect in the case is also dead.

[Sarah K]

Oof.

[allegro]

Moved from the wrong thread:

a lot of our ground pounder enlisted and veteran service men and women develop varying degrees of hearing damage/loss due to the nature of their job. suppressors are another protective measure against permanent hearing damage/loss.

our American Constitution 'safe guards' uprising against tyranny.
having these types of tools available to the public (cause these same tools and worse will always be readily available to the private sector) help to keep the playing field level so-to-speak; the people vs state/gov't

Here is the 2nd AMENDMENT to the Constitution, in its entirety (emphasis mine):

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.

The 2nd Amendment is often confused with Article VI of the Constitution and the "Oath of Office."

Any idea about the 2nd Amendment helping against an "uprising" of "tyranny" is not supported by the language of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment LITERALLY related to a MILITIA.

Also note that when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, there was a "free state" and a "slave state." So the 2nd Amendment specifically provides for arms for the highly-regulated STATE Government militias (private citizens fighting for the STATE Government) to fight and keep slaves.

It has since grew to be interpreted by the SCOTUS to protect States' rights regarding gun control, free from the Federal Government and Congress.

There are, literally, HUNDREDS of court cases that challenge the language of the 2nd Amendment. The scope and type of "arms" has been defined and has changed with the times; since our founding fathers drafted the 2nd Amendment as a brief (one singular sentence) declaration, law knows that this was intentional to avoid originalist interpretation and to allow each State to define their own laws.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in Heller, grew the language to now include handguns for home protection. But Heller (which cites the former Miller decision) specifically states:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

This concept has been supported and reinforced this year by a Federal Appeals court, see here.

The most striking part of Tuesday’s decision is a concurrence written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee. Wilkinson joined the majority opinion, but he wrote separately to express his discomfort with the gun lobby’s strategy of using the courts to increase access to dangerous firearms:

As Heller recognized, there is a balance to be struck here. While courts exist to protect individual rights, we are not the instruments of anyone’s political agenda, we are not empowered to court mass consequences we cannot predict, and we are not impaneled to add indefinitely to the growing list of subjects on which the states of our Union and the citizens of our country no longer have any meaningful say.

Wilkinson also criticized the dissenting judges, as well as the plaintiffs in this case, for attempting to take gun regulation out of democratic sphere almost entirely. His panegyric to judicial restraint with regard to Second Amendment interpretation is quite moving:

Disenfranchising the American people on this life and death subject would be the gravest and most serious of steps. It is their community, not ours. It is their safety, not ours. It is their lives, not ours. To say in the wake of so many mass shootings in so many localities across this country that the people themselves are now to be rendered newly powerless, that all they can do is stand by and watch as federal courts design their destiny—this would deliver a body blow to democracy as we have known it since the very founding of this nation.

In urging us to strike this legislation, appellants would impair the ability of government to act prophylactically. More and more under appellants’ view, preventive statutory action is to be judicially forbidden and we must bide our time until another tragedy is inflicted or irretrievable human damage has once more been done. Leaving the question of assault weapons bans to legislative competence preserves the latitude that representative governments enjoy in responding to changes in facts on the ground. Constitutionalizing this critical issue will place it in a freeze frame which only the Supreme Court itself could alter. The choice is ultimately one of flexibility versus rigidity, and beyond that, of whether conduct that has visited such communal bereavement across America will be left to the communal processes of democracy for resolution.

[Louie_Cypher]

I'll remind people that even amendments have limits, i don't want to take away guns but i do wish we had some form liesensing like we do with autos, which could be revoked for behaviors like we do with D.U.I's, i think that's reasonable, there's really no reason to own 20+ gun unless you are expecting a zombie Apocalypse of some kind. also not to make this sexiest but men tend to like to use their toys. if you buy a Lamborghini you're probably going to get a speeding ticket. I know a lot of gun owners. hell I've even shot full auto weapons in Las Vegas, no less def-con used to have a gun day. I would like to see reasonable legislation. and the NRA to get it's blood money out of our political system, and live in a country where i have a better chance at winning the lottery than being shot to death for being out in public
-Louie

[allegro]

but i do wish we had some form liesensing like we do with autos, which could be revoked for behaviors like we do with D.U.I's

Many states DO have that. And there is a Federal law preventing people with domestic relations convictions from owning or purchasing guns or ammo.

[allegro]

Just so people don't read this part as *requiring* that the people be part of a militia (a very popular misunderstanding lately)... it's to allow all the citizens to form a militia as needed.

Well, yes, the Militia isn't required. But a very good (primary) example of a State militia is the Civil War, with the Confederate States of America (a new country which the CSOA formed separate from the U.S.) being supported by a Militia against the Federal Government in the interest of preserving state's rights to own and trade slaves.

Scalia was an originalist and while I greatly respect many of his opinions, I feel that many of his opinions were too strict in originalist interpretation and he often contradicted himself in straying from his own strict originalist views.

But, yes, CONTEXT is the key, and the Revolution toward a free state (Federal) is/was Scalia's view as to "State" (but then he'd turn his views to interpret state as LITERALLY state's rights), and those state's rights, per Scalia, grew to include owning a handgun at home to protect your property and family.

[allegro]

The other issue that I think is going to be a key issue regarding guns and the 2nd Amendment relates to "terrorism" - both foreign and domestic - and controlling guns in the interest of "National Security."

Our founding fathers weren't up against one guy who could have enough guns and ammo to shoot nearly 600 innocent American citizens in about 20 minutes

[allegro]

the 2nd amendment is heavily to keep the power in the hands of the states, especially in comparison to the federal govt.

Well, except we kinda don't have a standing Federal army; we have a limited army which has been proven with the draft being instituted many times in the past; Scalia cites the Revolutionary War against King George and his Proclamation of Rebellion.

We have the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

See also, for example, Switzerland:

One of the best known and ancient militias is the Swiss Armed Forces. Switzerland has long maintained, proportionally, the second largest military force in the world, with about half the proportional amount of reserve forces of the Israeli Defense Forces, a militia of some 33% of the total population. Article 58.1 of the April 18, 1999, Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation (official, French version) provides that "Switzerland has an army. It is primarily organised according to the principle of a militia." However, under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute about 5 percent of military personnel. In 1995, the number of soldiers was reduced to 400,000 (including reservists, amounting to some 5.6% of the population) and again in 2004, to 200,000 (including 80,000 reservists, or 2.5% of the population). However, the Swiss Militia continues to consist of most of the adult male population (with voluntary participation by women) who are required to keep an assault rifle at home and to periodically engage in combat and marksmanship training. The militia clauses of the Swiss Federal Constitution are contained in Art. 59, where it is referred to as "military service"

We can say that our citizens aren't "required" to be in a "militia," but that's not true.

A draft is the mandatory enrollment of individuals into the armed forces. Although the United States military has been an all-volunteer force since 1973, the government maintains the ability to start a draft in case of a national emergency. The Selective Service System is the agency responsible for the draft.

Who Must Register for the Draft

Almost all men 18-25 who are U.S. citizens or are immigrants living in the U.S. are required to register with Selective Service.

Men in the U.S. on student, visitor or diplomatic visas and women are not required to register. For other exemptions, see the Who Must Register chart.

If we entered into another Vietnam, Korea, or World War, the U.S. would most definitely require a draft. If the U.S. was invaded by a foreign government on the ground, the U.S. could institute a draft, but each state could specifically site the 2nd Amendment wherein citizens could defend the U.S. using their own guns. And this is one of the primary arguments of 2nd Amendment proponents.

[allegro]

^ wait what? How do we NOT have a standing army? We have all the federal armed forces doing their thing without any Congressional declaration of war. If they are doing anything outside of the declaration of war, they are a standing army.

They don't have to be "fighting" to be an army or a militia. There are many stationed in bases across the world solely for protection of allies and our country.

See U.S. Armed Forces.

But, also, SEE THIS.

But it was not until September 29 [1789], the last day of its first session, that Congress passed a bill empowering the president “to call into service, from time to time, such part of the militia of the states, respectively, as he may judge necessary.” Before that, states could refuse to send along their men.

The 2nd Amendment was added in 1791.

Even with our HUGE armed forces, we have still needed to institute the draft in pretty much all wars against foreign countries.

But, when viewing the context of the original text of the 2nd Amendment: It was intended for STATES to have rights over their own militias. Like the National Guard, per U.S. Code relating to reservists vs. State Defense forces.

Unless you also view it from the originalist context of free state vs. slave state, as well as free state from King George.

So, yeah, we contradict shit all the time.

A-M-B-I-G-U-I-T-Y is intentional.

[allegro]

If we aren't at a time of war (as created by congression declaration), and there is still a military operating, and they still have the ability to operate on US soil, they they are a threat to the states. Things like the Posse Comitatus Act keeps getting messed with and there isn't a 100% exclusion of the military on US soil.

Honestly, I think most proponents of heavy gun control are also the types who would agree to us massively scaling back our military. They just don't see the connection with the 2A because they don't understand it beyond "everyone gets guns and stuff."

Well, yeah and yeah.

One example that comes to mind is the book and now TV Series based on Margaret Atwood's 1985 book, "A Handmaid's Tale." She wrote it during and was inspired by the U.S. religious right during the Reagan administration. But, lots of it is still scary stuff that could be applied to modern times; a theocratic and totalitarian armed military kills everybody in the U.S. government, hacks into the banking system and shuts down every debit card with an "F" for "Female" in it to prevent escape, and the citizens are unarmed and unable to defend themselves against the new ultra-religious totalitarian government that replaced the United States of America. Except, too, that the awful new government consists of a private militia that was armed to the teeth. So, yeah, depends on how you view it.

[allegate]

Well, yeah and yeah.

One example that comes to mind is the book and now TV Series based on Margaret Atwood's 1985 book, "A Handmaid's Tale." She wrote it during and was inspired by the U.S. religious right during the Reagan administration. But, lots of it is still scary stuff that could be applied to modern times; a theocratic and totalitarian armed military kills everybody in the U.S. government, hacks into the banking system and shuts down every debit card with an "F" for "Female" in it to prevent escape, and the citizens are unarmed and unable to defend themselves against the new ultra-religious totalitarian government that replaced the United States of America. Except, too, that the awful new government consists of a private militia that was armed to the teeth. So, yeah, depends on how you view it.

fuck yesssss
allegro is woke as fuck and actually gets the full implication behind books like Atwood's. So used to seeing the shallow and overly simple feminist interpretations of the new age.

and yeah, militias can go sour, but if we have them decentralized into 50 different states... there can be some added democracy and damage control. IMO, the states of today are way too big, but thats a whole different topic.

I just finished AHT and a lot of what you said came to mind while I was reading it. It all sounds so familiar and is certainly where these old white fucks appear to want to go.

I said it before but it's almost like they look at these things and think, "I could do that better."

[Louie_Cypher]

NRA gave 3.2 million dollar in campaign donations you think anything will happen to curb gun sales. send me $5 and I'll make sure it does. America were we practice the golden rule "those who have the gold make the rules".
-Louie

[allegro]

Paul Ryan shelves silencer bill, it's dead.

[sweeterthan]

Paul Ryan shelves silencer bill, it's dead.

A seriously small victory but I'll take it. It will probably come back tho. I don't understand why it exists in the first place.

[sweeterthan]

That's bullshit man. I dislike a lot about the NRA but they are funded mostly by small individual donations. I honestly don't know of another political interest org that has a larger percentage of funding coming through individuals.

In contrast, every pro gun control org has been funded by very deep pockets of a very small number of rich people. So if you are skeptical of big money controlling the world around you, I'd start looking at the pro gun control groups waaaaay before looking at the gun rights groups.

This article says the NRA gets millions from the gun makers.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-i...nds-nra-2013-1

I believe it too. There's no way they have that much money from memberships.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sweeterthan]

The article I shared says that one manufacturer buys you an NRA membership if you buy their gun. Another gives 10% of their sales to the NRA. The influence is definitely there even if it's not counted the same on the pie chart.

The chart also lists advertising as a revenue stream but who buys that advertising space? Gun makers.


ETA that plenty of people care about the hearing of gun owners. The solution for that is wearing ear protection. It's helps the gun owner while not endangering the lives of others. I'm sorry I don't see how the trade off is worth it.

[thelastdisciple]

Hear, hear!

[allegro]

Shit. I figured that would happen. It's not like CA would benefit from it, but it was a good direction. Suppressors aren't the scary Hollywood tech everyone thinks it is. It saves the permanent hearing of you and your family in a self defense situation at home. But the anti's enjoy saying "fuck the hearing of people who have guns." It also keeps the sanity of anyone who lives near a gun range. Other countries with heavy gun control encourage suppressor use.

Give me a fucking break. Wear ear protection. I did when I went to the range. Every fucking time.

I worked the door at a punk club for a year in 1982 and I have tinnitus, I'm playing a little tiny violin, here, about these whiny assholes bitching about their hearing. Wear some ear protection. Fucking TRENT REZNOR probably has permanent ear damage. But, it's his fault for not wearing ear protection. My uncle worked in a Ford factory for 30 years, and my father-in-law worked in a stamping plant forever, and both were fucking deaf. Why? Didn't wear ear protection.

The answer isn't silencers; the answer is fucking ear protection.

Re NRA; they have power in Congress because Congress is afraid of the NRA fucking up the elections and members of Congress losing their jobs. It's like why Congress is afraid of Trump because Trump threatens to use his base to get rid of all who oppose him.

It doesn't take money; it takes power. And the NRA gets all their money from fearmongering, "THEY'RE GONNA TAKE ALL YOUR GUNS." Except they're not. Same thing with pro-choice organizations, "THEY'RE GONNA REVERSE ROE V WADE." No, they're not. States can make gun ownership more restrictive and abortions more difficult to obtain, but the FEAR of guns and abortion going away gets tons of contributions.

And it's about lobbying.

See this: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/sum...?id=d000000082

It's like the AARP. I am a member. I get emails sometimes 3 times per day about some crazy damned Chicken Little scenario, and then they ask me for more money.

Anyway, the NRA isn't shit when it comes to Congress making decisions.

That's Congress' job. They and we can't blame the NRA. Congress isn't obligated to the NRA. They're only afraid of the NRA due to the fear of the NRA using decisions to hurt elections and re-elections. But, at some point, Congress has to have enough balls to say "fuck the NRA" if they know that they are representing the wishes of their constituency and not special interest groups.

And each State can make laws that represent the wishes of their constituents, regardless of the NRA. And the U.S. Constitution and SCOTUS decisions back this up so long as nobody's rights are violated.

[allegro]

Yeah let me pull out some ear plugs real quick during a home invasion.

You're NOT going to get ear damage from a fucking home invasion; ear damage is a progressive thing. If you are living somewhere where you are shooting people three times per day during home invasions, then you should probably move, dude.

But, otherwise, the ranges around here are soundproofed per municipal laws, and the outdoor ranges are so fucking far away from anything, it doesn't matter. Maybe birds are deaf, but do we care?

I worked at a LOUD punk club every Friday and Saturday for a YEAR and I don't have "ear damage" that affects my hearing. And I didn't even use any ear protection. And the club had to be soundproofed due to neighbor's complaints. I do have tinnitus, but that was likely also due to a lifetime of too-loud music and working in a printing shop for years.

I see kids driving around here with the music SO FUCKING LOUD in their cars, they're FOR SURE gonna get ear damage; way worse than the perceived risk of any ear damage from protecting yourself from home invasions by shooting guns at home.

Anyway, it's 2017 and we managed to live with it like this for this long (100s of years), stick a fork in it.

From a law enforcement standpoint, I can't imagine that gangbangers with silencers would be a good thing.

It took the cops in Vegas over AN HOUR to find the shooter, and he didn't have silencers.

[allegro]

Anyway, I had hoped that this would be a constructive discussion in here, rather than the constant bickering without seeing all sides, but evidently I was wrong.

Outa here, I'm staying Zen these days.

[Swykk]

(Not so) good guy with a gun?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...egas-shooting/

It just doesn’t work. Besides the stats not backing up the popular gunnut “good guy with a gun” theory, in a situation like Las Vegas (entertaining the ridiculous idea of an action movie fantasy scenario), theoretical John McClane Balzerian would have had to locate the shooter first, then get to the 32nd floor, circumventing hotel security, law enforcement, and try not to get shot during said heroic mission, and then what? Blow the door to the room open?

[Deepvoid]

Anyway, I had hoped that this would be a constructive discussion in here, rather than the constant bickering without seeing all sides, but evidently I was wrong.

Outa here, I'm staying Zen these days.

This thread is toxic. I quit a long time ago.

[sweeterthan]

It's barely been two days and the 2a crowd is already claiming "false flag". His neighbor says so, so it must be true. They can fuck off with that shit. It's not a false flag when real people die.

Also: clinging to your guns after a massacre is equally as gross as claiming this event is a set up to take away your guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Louie_Cypher]

Shit. I figured that would happen. It's not like CA would benefit from it, but it was a good direction. Suppressors aren't the scary Hollywood tech everyone thinks it is. It saves the permanent hearing of you and your family in a self defense situation at home. But the anti's enjoy saying "fuck the hearing of people who have guns." It also keeps the sanity of anyone who lives near a gun range. Other countries with heavy gun control encourage suppressor use.

there's are all kinds of ear protection available. besides giving the public access to assassin's tools. for people who live near a gun range you have ton of other things to worry about like stray bullets lead contamination, to name a few. for a party that's supposedly anti-abortion they sure are intent on seeing you die after you leave the womb
-louie