Derwood, respectfully, the problem arises when people try to pass judgment on things they are not familiar with--hence Crompsin's invite to the shooting range.

Then why are you even posting. You made your point, now quit trying to instigate. If you have no interest, then some rednecks who bust out with HEY I GOT GUNS shouldn't even elicit a response from you.

As to the original topic, I will never listen to a government that says "hey don't worry, it's ok, really". Anyone that tells me that out of the blue makes me back off and think the opposite. Chalk it up to life experience LOL.

Nah, it makes them Crackerton McGreedy McAgenda'd.

Respectfully, one doesn't need to shoot a gun to have a familiarity with the gun issue. I've never flown in a space shuttle, but I can be interested in NASA.

Because I care about the issue of gun control and how it's portrayed in the media and through special interest groups. I said I had no interest in operating a gun...that doesn't disqualify me from having an interest in the greater social dilemma of gun control.

So. . .You do not claim to have a 2nd amendment right to bear arms?

So you're ok with being censored, tossed in jail without charges, having your home invaded and searched or taken from you without cause. . .

Because if not, then you believe you have a right to not have those things happen to you. .



That would kind of be my point. ..


No, I'm not. You really do need to read my post again. I'm suggesting that if gun people CLAIM to have a RIGHT, then they should stop trying to explain to us why they NEED a gun. If it is a RIGHT, then they do not NEED to have a reason to exercise that RIGHT.

I am further suggesting that if they continue to tell me that they need a gun to shoot a bad guy or to protect themselves from bears, or to stop a bad government, that they are justifying their desire to have a gun, and since they feel there is a need to justify their desire to have a gun, they do not feel it is an absolute RIGHT.


Yes, it is, and that means I get to have my opinion too, hmm?

I was trying to point out that there is more conversation here than "justification."

I come here to talk. With no research to back me up, I assume others do as well.
-----Added 14/1/2009 at 08 : 02 : 49-----
Nope. Never have. Once again, please stop pigeonholing me with the rest of the Branch Nutjobians here. I don't have a cool armband and I don't wear my sunglasses indoors. As far as I'm concerned, guns are a privilege in the US... a privilege I've totally indulged in like a fat kid left alone with a cookie jar. Mmm... guns.

In my daft opinion, it's a privilege that is modified and tweaked and mutated by our upperclass' daycare mentality every dozen years or so, usually to restrict it more for "public safety" (Clinton) or weaken said restrictions to get votes (Bush). I have no illusions about government. Government's purpose is to maintain order. A lot of people in government like a job that requires minimal sweating and six figure tax-payer incomes.

I'm uneducated and bitter... so I don't care what the Constitution says or how the Supreme Court has ruled (rulings that swing like a pendulum every dozen years from due process to crime control 'n back). It's lofty bullshit to me until it has boots-on-the-ground application in Joe Monkeybrain's everyday life. Do I have the right to own guns? Sometimes and some kinds. Do I have the right to "bear" arms? Generally? Fuck no. Not outside my house or with a "concealed weapon permit" that has more restrictions than Mick Jagger's groupie sex body count. Only thing a concealed carry permit is good for is legal protection for keeping your gun in your car... sometimes. I've done a lot of research on where I can actually "bear" my right'd guns... and it's silly. Can't take it hiking, can't take it into a restaurant, can't take it near churches, schools, banks... wow, you'd swear that the government issues concealed carry permits to people thinking they're the criminals. Open carry is a "right" in some places... but it's also a great way to get cuffed and fingerprinted by your local police.

Rights are great and all... but every right has an endless fine-print listing of "BUTs" and "EXCEPT WHENs." tagged on the end that gets added every time another veneer-equipped suit takes office or terrorists attack. Guns have it the worst, I figure. Everybody likes to talk and read stuff and all those other Bill 'o Rights joys... but guns are controversial because terrorists (and racial minorities) use guns to kill white people and that's scary. How do we deal with fear? Give more power to the government to "keep us safe." I like the placebo effect here.

...

I don't know... I've taken a few law classes and every PhD and lawyer I've spoken with has told me the same thing about our "rights" in the US of A:

"Law (and your rights) is whatever the court says it is... and as long as you believe you're free, they get what they want."

...

When people have to ask you to explain your point over and over again... it might be because they're dummies... or it might be because you need to rethink the presentation.

It sure didn't take one of them long enough to 'use' the heller decision to wrap more control and 'regulation' in to making it even more difficult to exercise ones right to keep and bear, did it?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...:h45ih.txt.pdf

I wonder how long it will take this item to go through?

Lightbulb: I understand your point but it doesn't make any sense to me. I comprenende... but it muy loco.

Gun nuts: Justification silliness aside, maybe they're just talking for the other side of the spectrum that Derwood and other anti-gun know-it-alls are coming from... the side where they have "a RIGHT" (TM) to X but it is getting pissed on by "the MAN" (TM) like a back alley in New Orleans during Mardi Gras.

/goes back to being a middle-of-the-road know-it-all

It's kind of funny thinking about this. In the past, we actually had rights once. Then when those rights got included to groups of people a majority of elitists didn't think should have them, they all became burdened with the reasonableness standard. Then, when some people actually try to put forth the argument that if we truly believe we have the right, we don't need to justify it, just do it. Well horseshit. What happens to the person who says 'fuck it, its my right', and then runs afoul of some peoples 'reasonableness'? They get fucked by a system that others no longer liked because it didn't suit them. Thats why I say shoot the fuckers.

Tired of this reasonableness shit, social contract stupidity that gets defined by people who usually know crap about the subject anyway, just decide based on their bullshit emotions, and THEN, when someone actually dares challenge the so called establishment to assert their rights, they get called 'branch nutjobians'.

This thing called freedom died decades ago, most people just don't know it yet. Seems they are quite happy with the illusion of it though.

true, which is why i should probably rephrase it as 'I'd LIKE to shoot the fuckers'.

once upon a time, the world was populated by giants who lived quite apart from one another and spent much of their time going about exercising their rights by shooting their guns whenever they felt like it at whatever they felt like shooting at. other times, they did other things, but mostly, as their rights were central, they wandered around shooting at things real and imaginary, animate and inanimate, as the mood struck them.

every once in a while, a giant exercising his rights would espy another giant exercising his rights.
they would greet each other with a customary ritual called the "firefight" in which they would shoot at each other and laugh and laugh.

after the prescribed period of greeting, if both were still alive, the giants would make a campfire together and tell stories that they all somehow knew about the character god whom they all liked to imagine was up there somewhere, maybe overseeing a warehouse in which heavy machinery stamped out rights that were then delivered to the giants by secret conveyances. the main story involved a giant who stumbled upon the warehouse. entering without the ritual firefight of greeting, so abruptly, rudely, the giant saw this god character overseeing the machinery in the rights factory. "what are you doing?" the giant asked. "what i've always done" came the reply. "what do you mean?" asked the giant. "every since i remember, i've been here overseeing the machinery" the god character said. "this is all i do."

then came the Fall.

the story of the fall is confused, but its outcome evident--the arrival of the tribes of Elites from far away---thousands upon thousands of them poured into giantland. soon they had created private property and changed the landscape, putting Elite settlements Everywhere. you couldn't walk two days exercising your rights any more, for fear of killing one of the Elites, who did not know the rituals, did not engage in the requisite firefights of greeting that were the giants' way of saying hello.

these Elites were not only rude, but they didn't understand the basic importance of being able to walk around exercising your rights by shooting at things animate and inanimate. they assigned other functions to their version of the god character, and so this character migrated away from overseeing the machinery that stamped out the rights of giants and delivered them by secret conveyance. soon, giants all somehow knew a different version of the stories they would tell each other before the fall while sitting around the post-firefight campfire. the machinery of stamping out rights is delicate, these new stories would say. without supervision, they'll just stop. maybe they already have.

this became the giants' individual explanations for the loss of their rights.
they lost control of the story under pressure from the Elites.

soon the giants found themselves entirely overrun by the population of the Elites. they bred like rabbits. and they changed things. they brought new forms of plant life with them like those underground vines called electricity and indoor plumbing and strange glowing flowers called television sets.

worse, these Elites had strange customs, the most obvious and oppressive of which was "reasonableness".
they liked to coexist as a society.
who does that?
they preferred peace amongst themselves to the exercise of rights.
who does that?

but many giants found that staring at the strange glowing television flowers was interesting and that was the first step, the first loss. soon, you could not tell giants from Elites in many places. they looked the same, they talked the same, they all were fascinated by the glowing television plant and no longer went about exercising their rights by shooting at things animate and inanimate whenever they wanted to. and because of that, the important rituals of greeting---the firefight, the checking for survivors, the manly campfire amongst Heroes--all not only fell into disuse, but worse became something else.

these people, these Elites, convinced themselves and the giants that gave in to them that the firefight was "Unreasonanble"

and so into decadence slid the giants, confounded with, undercut by, and assimilated into the oppressive reasonableness of the Elites tribes. who were everywhere. they bred like rabbits and preferred living in peace to the execise of rights.
who does that?


but one day a Prophet will come.
o yes, one day a prophet will come and wake up the sleeping giants from their slumbers.
enough of the tyranny of peaceful co-existence and reasonableness, he will say.
remember the rights we gave up, he will say.

and somehow the sleeping giants will all know that the prophet has come, using that way of knowing that giants have who exist outside of society and only communicate with others after the ritual of firefights around a manly campfire, during which they talk about their rights and where they come from.

you need to polish up your reading comprehension skills. show me where I've been "anti-gun" on anything besides a personal level?

-----

but there is a good point about all rights being limited. some on the extreme side of the pro-gun movement would have you believe that no restrictions should be put on gun purchasing or ownership because the 2nd Amendment is an unalienable right. the truth is, all of the rights outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights have limits; you can't lie under oath, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you don't have the right to assemble in, say, the Oval Office....but if a legislator suggests that it might not be a great idea for your average "Joe Monkeywrench" to own an aresenal of military grade automatic weapons, people get their panties all in a twist.

roachboy, did you have a point behind your bullshit story other than to intimate that all gun owners who thought they have rights like to do nothing more than shoot at each other?
-----Added 14/1/2009 at 10 : 19 : 12-----
really? why? because some people are too afraid of others having freedom? thats really what it is you know. You say gun rights need to be limited because people shouldn't have military weaponry, yet that is exactly what the founders intended, if one can be intellectually honest enough to admit.

I can also yell fire in a crowded theater, if there is a fire. Do they put gags on you when you enter it?

i just thought it a quaint story, dk.
the post that reminded me of it, which i quoted at the outset, is far more surreal than my story.
but i was in a good mood, so thought it would be amusing to put forward a stronger case for your position than you did, that's all.

enjoy.

Alright. I'm sorry, then. I misread.

Which is my point. Pro-gun people in this thread have been loudly proclaiming that having a gun is a RIGHT and that they will shoot anyone who tries to take the gun away from them. But, despite the fact that the government is eagerly restricting and confiscating weapons of all kinds, guns included, they're not shooting. So there's a logical disconnect here that I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Otherwise it's a bunch of people with Rambo fantasies who won't actually back up what they're boasting about in here.

I am not offering an opinion here on whether or not having a gun is a right. I'm saying that there are people in here claiming it is a right, and claiming that they need the guns to keep their rights, and yet they aren't doing anything to stop the erosion of the rights they claim to have.

So what are you going to do about it? You're one of the loudest pro-gun, "it's a right, dammit" voices in here and yet you aren't using your guns for the reason the 2nd ammendment fanclub claims to need them. Why not?

why are you purposefully missing the point? the "yelling fire" example is fairly common in discussions about the limits of free speech. of COURSE you can do it if there is an actual fire, that's not the point.
-----Added 14/1/2009 at 10 : 58 : 29-----
first off, how do you know that's what the founders intended? it's certainly not explicit in the 2nd amendment, so can you cite me a different source?

second, the world was a much different place 200+ years ago. it probably seemed like a good idea that the citizens have musket loaders just like the infantry. it's not such a good idea that the citizens have SAM's and M-50's.

oh. ok then. nice, but fail. not amusing at all.
-----Added 14/1/2009 at 11 : 04 : 15-----
of course it's the point. to claim that one has no right to yell fire in a crowded theater is so much bullshit. You do indeed have that right, however, if you abuse it by doing it when there isn't a fire, there is a legal penalty to be paid. Does that mean the right has limits? no, it means if you abuse having it, you pay a penalty. It should be the same with all rights, but that's just not enough for some people.


federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, constitutional convention debates, and political commentary about the right to bear arms from several key people before, during, and after ratification that are clearly documented.....some of that commentary even coming from US supreme court justices.

why not? because half a dozen people might go hay wire and decide their life is shit, so they'll take as many out with them as possible? kind of sucks for the other 304,999,990 people that didn't do that.

I was thinking more about this thread. I see it's been humming along quite nicely. I liked roachboy's story, though he had a good source tale to base it on.

Anyway, the thought I had recently was this: If you live in a nation where personal freedom hinges on whether you have access to fully automatic weapons, perhaps it's time to get out.

why? I'm perfectly fine and happy with people owning fully automatic weapons. Hell, over 200,000 people in this country do already and i'm not worried about it at all, especially considering that there are only two documented crimes occurring with automatic weapons that were registered with the ATF and they belonged to cops. With that record, civilians with machineguns don't bother me a bit.

You aren't worried about your freedom? Even if they ban automatic weapons?

sorry, not making any sense here. what are you talking about?

IMO, very little is this thread makes sense anymore.

It has strayed so far off track from the OP and is just more of the same old rhetoric raised in every gun related discussion.

Interesting as I found that when I was living in Singapore, that the idea that guns were so controlled and basically only in the hands of a few, I thought the same thing, that my personal freedom was so infringed upon that I had to get out. Thank goodness I didn't live there when they banned gum.

There are extremes, of course. For example, I think we've heard enough about the Nazis and the Soviets.

* * * * *

dk, I was commenting on the ban of fully automatic weapons and whether it would mean the destruction of personal freedom. (i.e. if this indeed would be the case, then I think it would be a good reason to leave)

we're still fighting that. once we get to the point of intellectual dishonesty about it in the courts, well, we'll see where it goes from there. It should be evident that the very specific laws prohibiting SOME machine gun possession are totally unconstitutional and illegal, but the reality of it is that there are too many people out there right now, like derwood, who could care less about the constitution when it comes to things they don't like.

then making someone swear an oath of telling the truth in court is unconstitutional. prohibiting me from assembling a protest in the Oval Office is unconstitutional. prohibiting me from lying on a job application is unconstitutional.

no it's not, because you still have the right not to testify. 5th amendment?

editing this, because you're right. you can assemble and plan the protest in the oval office all you want. whether you actually get to do it, totally different thing.

I would tend to agree with you on this as well, in most cases. As long as you're not lying about things like having a congressional medal of honor, your performance will probably show that you either are, or are not, lying on your application. Simple records checks as well should show that you are either licensed to practice medicine or fly a plane, so if you want to lie on the application, go for it, but don't cry when you get fired because you can't do the job.

But I want to testify falsely. Doesn't my right to free speech allow me to do so? How dare someone tell me what I can and can't say! (having the choice not to testify doesn't change this)

Thus, i'm still being barred from my constitutional right to assemble in the Oval Office.

I see you like to be obtuse.

i'm making the point that constitutional rights aren't limitless, so the 2nd amendment crowd needs to chill out

no, what you're trying to do is create a stupid ass argument about the bill of rights making illegal, immoral, and unethical acts constitutional when in fact, the framers of that document had no such intention. get a new argument, yours fails miserably.

or what I said

I don't know if my high school was particularly lax, but students were allowed to chew gum in the halls, cafeteria, and, unless a teacher specifically objected, in class. One time after an assembly they handed out gum to every student as they left. I later learned that there was an administration-led drive to ban gum in the school and that handing out gum to every student was a way of testing the current policy. If the gum showed up stuck to the bottom of chairs and desks or became a nuisance they would have all the justification needed to ban gum permanently. That didn't happen though, students enjoyed their gum and disposed of it properly and the ban was given no further consideration.

Since Obama's election there has been a well documented spike in sales of assault weapons and other accessories that were previously banned. The fear is that Obama and a Democratic controlled congress will reinstate an assault weapon ban. So we have a statistical spike to work from and some solid facts on which to base our laws. In the next year or two if there is a spike in the use of assault weapons to commit crimes then IN MY OPINION we do need laws to make those types of weapons much harder for people to obtain. I honestly hope we don't see an increase in crime involving assault weapons. I'd like to think that there are enough responsible gun owners out there that such a ban isn't necessary. We'll see.

It's been pretty well documented that the assault weapon ban is largely an aesthetic ban as there are unbanned hunting rifles which are more powerful, more accurate, and capable of being magazine fed.

On the other hand if I have to read about more costumed 12-year-olds being gunned down by AK-47 fire as they hop up to trick-or-treat a well-lit house on Halloween night, I'm going to think it's a good idea to place as many barriers as possible to limit the purchase of such weapons. Someone will probably point out that the incident I mentioned above involved an ex-felon possessing weapons illegally. Surely though, those weapons would have been much harder for him to obtain and the chance that red flags would have been raised to law enforcement would have been much greater.

Some people are arguing for a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution, but unless you're arguing weapons be limited to black powder muzzle loaders, your argument entails just as much interpretation and tailoring as anyone else's. On the other hand there were certainly creators of the constitution who were aware of the ancient Greek's use of fire weapons, so flamethrowers should be okay right?

"Assault Weapons" are used in a very, very small percentage of homicides. They simply are not being used to kill people in any large numbers (except by the military). Also, studies of crimes-committed-by-assault weapons following the Clinton AWB showed no decrease in gun homicides as a result. Since there was absolutely no evidence it in any way actually reduced crime (likely because most criminals use pistols rather than expensive military-style rifles) the AWB was allowed to expire...those arguing in favor of one didn't have a leg to stand on.

America's problem with violence is more cultural than anything else...we have a higher rate of knife-murders than England, where knives are really all that's available for a potential killer to use. Likewise, Mexico has extremely harsh gun-laws...there is only one gun-store in the entire country. However, Mexico has a big gun-problem and firearms continue to be smuggled into the country by criminals (and then into the USA) and those who make a living off illegal activities are typically armed. It is this lop-sidedness I want to avoid, in addition to maintaining what I believe to be a fundamental right.


Oh, and with regard to your halloween indident...People (even criminals) acquire firearms to increase their sense of security. He probably bought whatever he could buy without paperwork, and if he couldn't get an AK he would probably have shot that girl just as dead with a shotgun.

That a particular firearm is used in a crime does not make that weapon responsible for that crime.

For instance, according to a BATF study in 2000, the weapon most often used in the perpetration of a crime is a S&W .38 Revolver. It isn't on any ban lists, it doesn't look scary or sexy, and it is relatively non-intimidating. Why go after rifles that are seldom used to commit crimes while ignoring the one which is used the most?

you make many great points, but I have to ask: what are the positives of you or any non-military citizen owning an assault weapon? Just because they aren't used in crimes doesn't make them a positive thing, does it? Can you outline for me the positives to Joe Blow owning such weapons?

That's a decent argument. But a person who has flown in space would be more credible regarding NASA than your average lay person.

2008 Mumbai attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Los Angeles riots of 1992 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you wanted the rioters to have assault weapons or the cops? or both?

you asked for positives to the average citizen owning 'assault' rifles, I gave you some, unless in your mind the average citizen is nothing but a criminal in waiting.

In an instance where the mumbai attacks could be the dallas attacks, I'd want a machine gun to fight back and force the terrorists to consider that they will die quickly.

In the north hollywood shootout, citizens having assault rifles could have stopped the mayhem from those two assholes alot faster than how it went down.

During the LA riots, the rioters would have been alot less damaging with the average citizens ability to defend their property and themselves with assault weapons, in fact, this was proven in media and tv reports.

These are just a few incidents where the bad guys already had them and it would have been better if joe q. citizen had equal firepower.

back to the op:

i happened to catch some of the attorney general confirmation hearing last night on c-span (my new favorite reality show outlet)...there was an exchange about "concerns originating with the second amendment crowd" that might be illuminating for my colleagues on the right. the jist of the exchange was that the obama administration has no plan to alter gun control parameters--not only that but he cannot imagine the administration undertaking such action. prerogatives on gun issues will then remain with the states. this in response to questions from a republican senator whose name eludes me (as does the name of obama's ag nominee--i keep thinking heller, but that's also the name used to refer to the main existing precedent on gun issues) and another from leahey.

the republican senator kept pressing for a yes/no answer to a hypothetical question and did not, in the end, seem to find the exchange to be entirely satisfactory--but i would think it enough to calm down the gun folk who imagine that there will be some kind of immediate change in the legal framework that enables them to procure their Important Implements.

despite holders newfound respect for the individual right protected by the second amendment, his remarks during that hearing confirm that he believes 'reasonable restrictions' can still be implemented like an assault weapons ban. I firmly believe that this will again be attempted, and I almost hope that they do, because the political fallout will be even harsher than it was in 94.

i didn't get the impression that anything like that was on the administration's radar for at least the first term.
it seems to me that the problem folk who think as you do may face, it problem it is, will be at the state and local levels.

i thought holder was quite clear in his responses about this, particularly in the exchange with leahey.

As for state and local levels, I'm not worried about anything Holder may say or do.


This was just a small part of that. I haven't read all the articles or the transcripts of the hearings yet, but it's clear to me at least that the Obama admin will work with the dem majority leadership, minus harry reid, and attempt to push a perm assault weapons ban. I think it will fail against the 2nd Amendment in court though, unless the current USSC has decided that the framers intent needs be done away with.

at the same time, dk, he was quite clear that heller was the new framework and that he had no intention in his capacity as attorney general in overturning that. at the core of the exchange was the separation between holder's personal views, where they come from and how they've changed, as over against his views on the legal environment that'd circumscribe his relation to gun control legislation.

strange though how different things look as you're watching as over against how they read on the transcript.

i'm curious about why you make a separation between state/local controls, which can be quite draconian, as over against federal controls. i would think you'd consider them equivalent.

Cop Killer bullets? These things are real? and legal?

The heller decision is not the landmark ruling that people think it was. The USSC left it so that 'reasonable restrictions' could pass constitutionality, without ever defining reasonable. So, we will go round and round again with hundreds of cases until 'reasonable' is defined more clearly.

as to your last statement....why would I worry about an AG of the united states having any say over state/local controls? he has no authority or jurisdiction to make a state gun law.

dk--i didn't phrase my question well.
i wonder why *you* make a separation between federal and state regulation.

'cop killers' is a term that is used much the same way that 'assault rifle' is used by the anti set. It's a term used to incite fear that an item has only a specific sinister purpose.
The reality is that any big game rifle round is a 'cop killer', meaning that it has the energy to penetrate most level 1 and 2 types of body armor, those usually worn by police officers. Some handgun rounds also have this ability, but since police are usually the 'only ones' to wear body armor, they get called 'cop killers'.
-----Added 16/1/2009 at 12 : 52 : 29-----
It's all in how you have to deal with it. New federal regs/laws have to be lobbied for or against using US reps/senators while state regs/laws have to be lobbied for/against with state reps and senators. The main separation though is a TX state law does not affect an OK state law, whereas a federal law encompass' all 50 states
-----Added 16/1/2009 at 01 : 27 : 54-----
roachboy, i've got to go back to your statement about about not altering gun laws at all. Did you miss this part about the hearings?

Holder hearings

Interesting. What is the positive value of Joe Monkeywrench having access to armor piercing bullets?

well, i seriously start to wonder if any answer I give you will matter because you have constantly referred to any gun owner as joe monkeywrench or something else derogatory.

As I said before though, your standard .30-.30 deer hunting round can penetrate body armor easier than any handgun round, so do you want to ban hunting rifle ammunition?

are you posing the question back to me or did your response get eaten by cyberspace?

it was eaten, i reposted

I was only using Joe Monkeywrench because someone else in this thread was. Wasn't meant to be derogatory

I understand that a deer hunting round can penetrate body armor. My question is, what's the value in having HAND GUN ammo that can pierce body armor. It's an honest question.

Fair question. While USUALLY cops are the only ones to wear body armor, that isn't always the case. Look at the north hollywood bank robbers, wearing body armor. There have been other instances like home invasions done by criminals who were wearing body armor. Most people defend their homes with handguns initially and if body armor protects against most handgun rounds, a home invader could feel less vulnerable in committing his crime.

Over all, I'd want body piercing ammo for that very reason even though I'm an expert shooter. It would be rare to need it, but i'd rather have it and never need it, than to need it and not have it.

i'd love to know the statistics on the # of home invasions by criminals with body armor.

would stats make a difference? if it doesn't happen often enough for you, they should ban civilian possession of armor piercing handgun rounds?

if the evidence is that 1 or 2 crimes are prevented a year? yeah, i would probably take the risk of banning the ammo.

so one or two families a year being killed by criminals wearing body armor is acceptable in order to prohibit civilian possession of armor piercing ammo?

Okay, somebody post statistics. This thread is lamer than President George Double-Duh Bush.

I'll rephrase: if the number of families being killed by criminals wearing body armor is significantly less than the # of innocent civilians and/or cops being killed by armor piercing bullets, I'd ban them.

I see. some peoples lives are more important than others. would you believe this same way if it was your family killed by someone wearing body armor?

maybe not.

but I'd be willing to bet that the # of innocent people killed by criminals with armor-piercing bullets is hundreds of times higher than the # of people killed by home-invaders with body armor. Seriously, who robs a house armed to the teeth and fully armored? people who rob houses don't have the scratch to afford that stuff...that's why they're robbing houses.

you don't watch or read a whole lot of news, do you? and it wouldn't be 'hundreds of times higher', not that it should matter. If a law prevents even one decent family from having effective means of defense, its not worth the law.

Sure I do, and the American media is largely to blame in fostering the "culture of fear" in this country. The evening news would have you believe that half the houses in town are broken into every month. It's simply not true.

You know what kills way more families than intruders with bullet-proof vests?

Cars

Let's ban cars. I mean, you value the lives of every family, so why are allowing these death machines on the roads?


Snarkiness aside, laws like this aren't written with the "if it saves one life" cliche in mind. If, statistically, more lives are saved than lost due to banning armor-piercing bullets (and by more, I mean by a large margin) then I would back the effort. You can't make concessions for every single possible scenario.

The bolded part is not true at all. Several gun laws were written with EXACTLY that cliche in mind. The waiting period law, the NICS check, the safe storage laws.....all written with the 'if it saves one life, it's worth it' mantra. Statistically, they can't be shown with any certainty whether it has saved any lives or not.

How much are you willing to bet?

I need some extra scratch to make those final purchases. I have an lower that desperately needs an upper and there's a few other things I need/want before the laws change.

I'd guess: nothing. His undereducated opinion without statistics is useless.

Kinda like mine.

...

Better answer: Criminals don't use body armor or armor piercing ammunition within 3 standard deviations.

Its far more strategic on the part of the NRA to keep misrepresenting Obama's position (as well as Holder's).

States and cities are faceless and a boogeyman is needed to keep the money flowing for NRA $multi-million propaganda campaign.

i don't have statistics, and neither does anyone else here (i've asked for some about half a dozen time).

that said, I've never heard of a home invasion where the perpetrator was wearing body armor. doesn't mean it's never happened, but your run of the mill cat burglar probably isn't wearing something that costs a few grand.

In the words of Navin R. Johnson (Steve Martin, The Jerk) : Ah... It's a profit deal. Takes the pressure off. Get your weight guessed right here! Only a buck! Actual live weight guessing! Take a chance and win some crap!

Body armor doesn't cost a few grand. You can buy an excellent setup for under $1000. How do I know? Because I own a Level IV stand alone plate set.

"Armor piercing" ammunition can be bought at most gun shops. What is my point?

Criminals don't use such things because they're not tech savvy enough.

Criminals typically use cheap "illegal" or legal-but-stolen firearms to commit crimes. They use snub rose revolvers in .38 Special and throw-away automatics in .22, .25, .32 caliber. Pocket guns. Standard calibers like 9mm, .357 Mag, .40, and .45 are less common. The bigger and more expensive the gun, the less it is used to commit crimes. "Assault rifles" (and long guns in general) are almost never used for urban street crimes because they're too big to stuff into a hoodie. The use of cheap weapons means they can be disposed of without cutting into the profit margin of the douchebag who's selling drugs or whatever.

okay. what does any of that have to do with what we're talking about?

Wayne LaPierre is smarter than your average jerk.

He was asked by Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to testify at Holder's confirmation hearing but declined...understanding that he would likely have had to answer questions about the NRA's false and misleading media campaign about Obama's positions.

Oh gee. 'Armor Piercing Bullets.'

Do you know that a knife can puncture low level 'soft' ballistic armor?

Basically, it's a *scary* term, but depending on the armor used and the caliber used, any round--indeed even knives can be 'armor piercing.' Furthermore, almost any standard rifle hunting round is 'armor piercing' to the standard level III concealable body armor used by cops...

So as you see, the term 'armor piercing' is very equivocal, and unfortunately, is frequently abused by the media.

Sigh.....

Ok, I have been very busy, but here is my attempt to answer your questions.

I was not trying to build a case for assault weapons, but rather questioning why they get so much attention when they are involved in so few crimes. It's like raising millions of dollars to combat a disease nobody actually gets.

I cannot quote you statistics, so you are only going to get my opinion in response to your first question. I believe the positives of law abiding civilians owning semi automatic rifles are thus: They allow the homeowner to out-gun most burglers armed with knives/pistols (I think if you have to use lethal force, you should be in it to win), and they may potentially allow people to defend their houses/neighborhoods during periods of civil unrest...this has happenned in the past, and the neighborhoods who posted armed sentries did not get looted. If I find myself in either situation and I have time, I am going to reach for a long gun because it will allow me to dominate the situation.

Also, as far as 'preventing' deaths consider this: How many burglers are going to continue to advance on a guy wielding a rifle? I think intimidation is a key factor in self defense...if you hold the upper hand the bad guy is less likely to call your bluff.

For your second question, yes 'copkiller bullets' are real.

But (and it is a big but) they are not at all what the public thinks of. I don't mean to lecture, but it is important to know how armor, and armor piercing rounds work.

Soft armor as worn by most police officers depends on the materials ability to spread the energy of an impacting bullet out over a large-enough area that it is not able to penetrate the vest/body of the officer. Conversely, armor piercing ammunition attempts to place as much energy as possible on a pinpoint area to 'stab' through the armor. As a result, true armor piercing performs very poorly against the average unarmored assailant as it will poke as small a hole as possible. Rifle rounds, by nature, are very fast, narrow rounds which will punch through most soft armor. There have been several attempts over the years to ban all rifle ammunition on the grounds that it is 'armor piercing' and it is for that reason this debate is so touchy amongst the gun crowd. I don't know anybody who even wants armor piercing pistol ammunition...it performs poorly against unarmored assailants, and against the odd armored one it is simple enough to shatter their pelvis or perform a failure drill. The attempts to ban other ammunition under the umbrella of 'armor piercing' or 'cop killer' are misleading, but commonplace.


As of a couple years ago (and I believe it is still true) there were no recorded cases of a police officer being shot through his armor with armor-piercing ammunition. Cops who die of gunshot wounds are by definition killed by cop-killer bullets, but they are not armor-piercing and never have been.

New question (because I don't know the answer):

How many home burglars come armed and/or looking to fight? My brain says a burglar wants a theft to be quick, easy, and without incident. Usually this means the homeowners are out, and if not, they'll flee when they realize someone is in the house.

On the other side of the coin, what material possessions do you have that are worth getting into a potential gun fight over? If I was asleep upstairs and I heard a burglar, I'd quickly get my family into the master bedroom, block the door, and wait for the burglar to leave. There is nothing in my house worth getting killed over. Nothing.

I don't know the answer either, but I am less concerned about the burglar who flees than I am about the one who breaks in knowing there are people home. The intruder who does not leave when you yell that you are armed isn't there for your TV. Also, I am away from home a lot and my wife stays in the house alone. I don't want her to be at the mercy of the first person who has the audacity to force his way into our home and realizes there is a young woman there alone.

I am not going to shoot an unarmed burglar, and I am not going to kill in order to protect property. However, I will confront an intruder and tell them to get out of my house, and I am not about to allow them to arm themselves by stealing one of my firearms. Lethal force is a last resort against an attack, but there is no reason I can't expel an intruder from my home by other means.

You can go be a sheep if you want to...I would rather die than subjugate myself to the whims of some piece of trash who is trying to live as a parasite off of the efforts of others.


On a side note, if I had children then protecting them would be my number one priority and I would do as you describe. If I had a second story I would likely clear to the stairwell and lock it down while waiting for police.

Oh, and as what I have worth getting in a gunfight over: I won't shoot an unarmed intruder because the law does not allow it. However, I believe that people only deserve what they are willing to defend. I would fight for my possessions in a heartbeat. If the intruder escalates it to a gun fight then so be it...I haven't lost one yet and I'm willing to bet I've been in more than he (they) has (have).

So you'd shoot and kill someone over your DVD player?

No, I said quite plainly in my post which you quoted that I will not shoot an unarmed intruder.

I said I would fight for my possessions, and if the intruder escalated the situation to a gun fight then I would defend myself. I am perfectly willing to expel an intruder from my home, and I am perfectly willing to defend what is mine. If the intruder does not try to kill me then I won't shoot them, but I will not surrender my property either. On the other hand, if the burglar tries to shoot ME over my DVD player, then I would shoot back.

On a moral level I do believe my DVD player is worth more than the life of a person who would steal it from me, but I am not rash enough to shoot them for it. That DVD player represents an investment in both time and risk to my life...Why should someone else be allowed to simply take it from me? I have been working for the last 15 years, and my possessions are the material representation of that effort, time, and the large risks I took to acquire them. To start over would require me to risk my life again and would take years off my life...both of which I consider to be priceless.

It is like a mugging.

Simply asking me for my wallet does not constitute a threat. But if I say no and they present a gun, then I would defend myself. Either way, the odds are slim to none that they are going to get my wallet. The only exception is if I feel so out matched I have no other choice.

If the average person showed a little more spine, criminals would not have nearly the success they currently enjoy in our society. I think it is a matter of personal responsibility to not be a victim...If you submit then you are rewarding and encouraging criminal behavior.

I concur, but you're too demanding of the American populace, bro.

Alright, so you'll shoot and kill an armed person over your DVD player but not an unarmed person?

if a burglar is going to shoot you over a DVD player, you're unlikely to have the chance to fire back

I have no problem showing some spine. But I'm not taking a life over a "thing." If someone's life's in danger that's another story.
-----Added 17/1/2009 at 07 : 25 : 20-----
How do you know? Their hands might be full of your Bose system, making them an easy target.

This thread already has less guidance than the last 8 years of White House activities...

But the topic of morality is one probably best reserved for another thread.

Highlights include:

- Somebody breaking into your clearly occupied house has no right to live.

- Deterrent effect of laws allowing individuals to kill people who break into homes that are occupied.

- Society is too soft on criminals and ignores victims.

AND MORE!

In all fairness I stopped reading this thread long ago, much of it seemed pointless and senseless long ago. Just saw the post about shooting people over property and it struck me odd, still does.

You guys can go back to deciding who to shoot and with what ammo, I'll be sure to stay clear of the line of fire from here on out.

Ok, to be very clear, again: I will not shoot someone over property, even though I have no moral qualms about doing so.

However, I will NOT surrender my property. I.E. I will try to take it back and make the intruder leave. If at that time the intruder tries to kill me, then I will defend myself. I won't kill over property, though I will take risks to protect it. I will kill in order to save my own life if the burglar attempts to murder me when I confront him.


And Derwood, I disagree. If I am confronting an intruder in my house, I will do so on my terms and I will be prepared.

Oh, and I don't think Obama is going to touch firearm legislation for a while, he's got other things to worry about.

What if the burglar was 6 ft and 230lbs of muscle, and your children slept down stairs where the burglar was? Hell nobody wants to kill nobody, but the thought of leaving loved ones subject to the whim of a burglar who can overpower you are, well, discomfiting.

Well, it's official. PRESIDENT Obama intends to not only reinstate the AWB, but go even further and impose a de-facto nationwide firearms registry, and 'child proof guns' that have also been fairly shooter-proof also. Whatever he may have said during his campaign could be taken with a grain of salt as he was in it to win. However, now that he is President and outlining his official policy, his words matter more.

From the official White House website: Urban Policy


"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

I don't think the AWB thing will pass congress. I really don't. The rest of the stuff sounds completely reasonable to me, particularly the gun show loopholes

"Gun show loopholes."

Educate the thread.

I will not register a single firearm I own. I will not surrender any uncoded ammo and will go so far out of my way to acquire the materials and knowledge to reload my own. I will not perform any background checks IF I sell a personal piece of my firearm property nor will I allow one to be done on myself if I buy from another private individual.

There is no gunshow loophole no matter how many times people try to say there is.

There is no restriction in the tiarht amendment that prevents law enforcement from running traces on guns.

The assault weapons ban of 94 did nothing to prevent a single crime and neither will a new one.

Obama has officially lied to the american people about his so called respect for the 2nd Amendment. It is obvious that the democrats still intend on doing as much as possible to disarm me.

I will not comply.

Molon Labe.

Usa! Usa! Usa! Usa!

There is absolutely a gun show loophole.

If you are a dealer at a gun show but not in "the business of selling firearms" (e.g. just a guy who wants to unload a few handguns) then there is no NCIS requirement.

If you want to hold a gun show in your backyard where you and your buddies can unload your unwanted handguns, there are few if any restrictions.

I repeat, there is no gun show loophole. ANY FFL licensed dealer MUST ABSOLUTELY run a NICS check when selling a weapon be it at their own shop or at a gunshow. The so called 'loophole' is a monstrously huge LIE fabricated by the Brady campaign, democrats, and various other anti gun groups. Their idea of a 'loophole' involves ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL who wants to sell any of their own personal and private firearms that are not part of an FFL inventory. That is all. In other words, they want background checks required for EVERY SINGLE GUN SOLD IN AMERICA which is nothing more than total firearm registration. That is not a loophole, that is regulating who owns what pieces of private property.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 10 : 16 : 36-----
take a look at your avatar.

you mean like automobiles, which i'm sure you have no problem with

dk...are you suggesting that there are never persons selling weapons at gun shows that are not FFL licensed dealers?

An automobile is a mobile piece of property that ANYONE of legal age to participate in legal contracts can own. As to having a problem with it, hell yes I have a problem with it. Registration is nothing more than a so called 'tax' to increase state revenue, supposedly to pay for road maintenance, but is never used for that purpose which is why most states are implementing more and more toll roads.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 10 : 24 : 20-----
Read closer dc. If someone is a dealer, they must run a NICS check. I am not FFL licensed, therefore NOT a dealer. If I go to a gun show and want to sell one of my firearms, I can. I do NOT need to run a NICS check because I am not a dealer. That is the 'loophole' they say needs closing. They want to shut down private sales, thereby implementing total firearm registration.

well then we'll never agree on this subject, as I feel the opposite (that if cars are registered, then so should guns).
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 10 : 25 : 22-----
correct. and many people support this idea

dk...so if you want to sell one of your firearms to a know felon who stops by your little home-made stand at a gun show, you should have that right..because you are not a dealer?