New gun control thread!

[Joe Miner]

over-reach...........everywhere

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Hard to call an airsoft gun a firearm.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/firearm?s=t

 

fire·arm

[fahyuhr-ahrm] Show IPA

noun

a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

[B-Man]

The point is not the "weapon", but the fact that it was at home on their own property.

 

The schoolsystem/government should not be punishing them for using a legal product on private property.

 

 

 

see:

 

over·reach verb

 

: to try to do something that is beyond your ability to do

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 24, 2013 by B-Man

[/dev/null]

Hard to call an airsoft gun a firearm.

 

http://dictionary.re...wse/firearm?s=t

 

 

fire·arm

[fahyuhr-ahrm] arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

 

You're assuming that Progressives speak the same language

 

Glock - Any hand gun

AR-15 - Any rifle

Full auto - Any non muzzle loader

[Joe Miner]

The point is not the "weapon", but the fact that it was at home on their own property.

 

The schoolsystem/government should not be punishing them for using a legal product on private property.

 

 

 

see:

 

over·reach verb

 

: to try to do something that is beyond your ability to do

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

I understand the kids were not at school.

 

But my point is that the rule they broke about firearms was ridiculous on 2 points:

 

1) They weren't at school, on school property, or at a school function

2) It's not a firearm

 

The word fire is in firearm for a reason.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Hiya Jim (I obviously found it ).

 

Firstly, the concept that you didn't say something like "somewhat obsolete" or "in part the US const..." is a little worrying to me......but I'll give benefit of doubt on that and continue...

 

In direct answer, no, I don't think that it is obsolete. In fact think it does a very good job of covering what are logically basic human rights. It was however written at a time and place that in many ways had different circumstances and influences than that of today.

 

A good example of this is the 3rd amendment:

 

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

At the time of writing, this was quite an important issue. It was written in direct response to the British previously passing a law that enabled them to house soldiers in private residences in America. Its inclusion was quite obviously due to the specific influences of the day, and as time has shown, was quite irrelevant in following times as there has never been a legal occasion where it has been used. It obviously isn't a bad thing to have in a constitution, but it certainly is quite archaic with many other issues becoming far more important than this one in the years following it being enacted.

 

Another good example is the 7th amendment:

 

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

The amount of "twenty" dollars was obviously meant to keep trivial matters out of the courts. For the time and place this was likely extremely reasonable, but in today's money one could demand a trial by jury for a dispute over a couple of pizzas. Again, this shows how the constitution was written by people of a different time.

 

 

The fact that the constitution itself allows for amendments to be added or removed shows great wisdom on the part of those who drafted it. It not only allowed for the concept that they might not have done a perfect job, but more importantly allowed for the changes of time having influence on what was important to the people it protected.

In the Australia thread you used the "different time" remark as a answerer to a specific remark from EII on the 2nd. Not the others. Do you feel the 2nd is obsolete?

[Dibs]

In the Australia thread you used the "different time" remark as a answerer to a specific remark from EII on the 2nd. Not the others. Do you feel the 2nd is obsolete?

 

Before I answer (and I definitely will answer if that is what you'd like), I'd like to know if you agree with the general premise of my previous post.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Before I answer (and I definitely will answer if that is what you'd like), I'd like to know if you agree with the general premise of my previous post.

Not really. The 3rd is never used but do you want to repeal it? The arbitrary dollar figure in the 7th is low but do you see organized groups trying to repeal it or have it interpreted so badly it's toothless? The 2nd is under constant attack and is important every minute, every day in this country.

[Dibs]

Not really. The 3rd is never used but do you want to repeal it? The arbitrary dollar figure in the 7th is low but do you see organized groups trying to repeal it or have it interpreted so badly it's toothless? The 2nd is under constant attack and is important every minute, every day in this country.

 

It seems that you did not understand the basic concept of what I wrote.

 

The crux of it was within my last paragraph....

 

"The fact that the constitution itself allows for amendments to be added or removed shows great wisdom on the part of those who drafted it. It not only allowed for the concept that they might not have done a perfect job, but more importantly allowed for the changes of time having influence on what was important to the people it protected."

 

The examples given of the 3rd & 7th were not to make comment on whether they should or shouldn't be changed or repealed, but were provided to give example to the base point. At the top of my head I could add the 13th, 18th and 21st amendments to the list of examples which further back the concept.

 

 

As any future comment I make in regards to my views on the 2nd amendment will be founded upon that initial basic concept, I do not think it rude that I insist on you showing an understanding of this concept before I proceed. I understand that this might well feel like some sort of clever verbal trap but I assure you it isn't. I simply wish the person I am having a discussion with to be on the same page.

 

Also, I get the impression that you will be expecting some sort of lefty liberal bleeding heart response from me in regards to the 2nd.....to which you will possibly be somewhat disappointed (though I warrant will still take some sort of umbrage to, we'll see).

[Jim in Anchorage]

It seems that you did not understand the basic concept of what I wrote.

 

The crux of it was within my last paragraph....

 

"The fact that the constitution itself allows for amendments to be added or removed shows great wisdom on the part of those who drafted it. It not only allowed for the concept that they might not have done a perfect job, but more importantly allowed for the changes of time having influence on what was important to the people it protected."

 

The examples given of the 3rd & 7th were not to make comment on whether they should or shouldn't be changed or repealed, but were provided to give example to the base point. At the top of my head I could add the 13th, 18th and 21st amendments to the list of examples which further back the concept.

 

 

As any future comment I make in regards to my views on the 2nd amendment will be founded upon that initial basic concept, I do not think it rude that I insist on you showing an understanding of this concept before I proceed. I understand that this might well feel like some sort of clever verbal trap but I assure you it isn't. I simply wish the person I am having a discussion with to be on the same page.

 

Also, I get the impression that you will be expecting some sort of lefty liberal bleeding heart response from me in regards to the 2nd.....to which you will possibly be somewhat disappointed (though I warrant will still take some sort of umbrage to, we'll see).

If you wish to play some game where I need to present my qualifications about you're understanding of the constitution to get your thoughts on the 2nd it's not going to happen. One thing I can see is you're plainly avoiding the 2nd and making every effort to skate around it.

[Dibs]

If you wish to play some game where I need to present my qualifications about you're understanding of the constitution to get you're thoughts on the 2nd it's not going to happen. One thing I can see is you're plainly avoiding the 2nd and making every effort to skate around it.

 

*sigh*

I sigh because I really don't care much about this. I don't live in the country nor do I have any strong predetermined political views one way or the other on the topic. Perhaps I was a bit naive to expect a straight forward conversation on the topic, I don't know.

 

I expected something like this....

 

Dibs: "....being written in 1791, it likely was pertaining to a different type of society than that of modern day. "

 

Jim: "....so you believe the US constitution is obsolete?"

 

Dibs: ".....no, I don't think that it is obsolete.....<gives reasons for initial statement>"

 

Jim: "I understand that, but how do you think that effects the 2nd amendment?"

 

Dibs: "<gives his opinion on how he thinks it effects the 2nd amendment.>"

 

Instead I got you showing that you either didn't understand what I wrote....or were consciously avoiding acknowledgment of the concept itself. The concept which I might add was specifically what you called into question initially.

 

 

Though actual conversation seems rather futile, being a man of my word I will now write my views on the 2nd(which was always going to happen as I stated earlier).

 

I'll keep this fairly brief...

I believe that the 2nd amendment(similar to the 3rd) was worded largely as a product of its time. At the time, the common man in the modern world was easy prey to be oppressed, abused or generally physically attacked. The strong arm of the law was not so strong, nor did it extend very far(particularly in America). He was also subject to regular incursions upon his sovereign soil by invaders. As the government (via military and police) could not provide reasonable equal rites protection for it's citizens, the 2nd amendment was an obvious necessity for the time. Furthering to that, the guns of the day were nowhere near the mass killing machines we have in modern times.

 

The key aspect to me is....can a government (which has democratic checks and balances) provide reasonable equal rites protection from both domestic and foreign threats? If so, then there is no reasonable argument for allowing weapons capable of mass slaughter to be available to the citizenry as they likely will cause more harm than good to the average citizen.

 

The question then becomes....can the US government today provide reasonable equal rites protection for its citizens?

 

As I do not live in the States, I honestly do not believe that I can give an informed opinion on that, I can only make an opinion based upon statistics and logic.

 

The fact that there are copious quantities of guns (including military grade weapons) throughout the country which lead to an incredible number of shootings suggests to me that there would be a very strong argument that the government can't in fact provide reasonable protection domestically to its citizens, thus leaving a need for people to be able to protect themselves from essentially modern day armed banditry.

However.....if the statistics were to show that the number of deaths/incidents caused by the average citizen were to grossly overshadow the number of deaths/incidents caused by the criminal elements in society, there would be a strong argument to suggest that the average citizen would be safer with tight gun control.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Dibs

[Jim in Anchorage]

However.....if the statistics were to show that the number of deaths/incidents caused by the average citizen were to grossly overshadow the number of deaths/incidents caused by the criminal elements in society, there would be a strong argument to suggest that the average citizen would be safer with tight gun control.

Well then we have nothing to worry about. That will never happen. Edited September 25, 2013 by Jim in Anchorage

[/dev/null]

Celebrate diversity

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/26/a-gun-map-thats-a-little-different-than-normal/

[IDBillzFan]

So a woman follows Joe Biden's advice to save her 15-year-old daughter from being attacked, and she gets arrested.

 

Nice job, everyone!

 

A Woodbridge woman was arrested after she shot a handgun into the air to scare off a group of boys who were attacking her daughter.

 

Lakisha Gaither, 35, said she fired a single round into the sky from her legally registered gun Saturday night after a boy punched her daughter in the face during a dispute near their home.

 

“I just wanted this group of guys to disperse,” Ms. Gaither said. “I didn’t know what they were going to do. I wanted him to stop hitting my child.”

 

The shooting occurred at 9:20 p.m. in the 13600 block of Cridercrest Place. After confronting a teenage girl and her mother in the neighborhood over a prior disagreement, Ms. Gaither and her 15-year-old daughter, Brianna Stewart, began walking home. A group of about 10

boys approached them in the parking lot of their apartment complex. One boy began to swear and insult Ms. Gaither and her daughter, who stood up to the boy.

[TheMadCap]

So a woman follows Joe Biden's advice to save her 15-year-old daughter from being attacked, and she gets arrested.

 

Nice job, everyone!

 

I would have done the same thing if it were me, and gladly been arrested to save my child. The cops were correct, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in a residential area, no matter what VP Boob has to say on the matter.

 

Btw, I remember the "just buy a shotgun" part, did he advocate firing into the air?

[/dev/null]

Btw, I remember the "just buy a shotgun" part, did he advocate firing into the air?

Joe Biden and Girls with Shotguns

 

[TheMadCap]

 

Joe Biden and Girls with Shotguns

 

 

Oh brother. Defense? Dems? libs? Anyone?

[boyst]

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20656068

13 yr old killed by cops in cali. He was carrying a top ak and a handgun on his waistband.

 

NY was right. Cops shouldn't carry either

[3rdnlng]

I would have done the same thing if it were me, and gladly been arrested to save my child. The cops were correct, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in a residential area, no matter what VP Boob has to say on the matter.

 

Btw, I remember the "just buy a shotgun" part, did he advocate firing into the air?

 

Well, he advocated shooting it but didn't say where. I would say if you are on dirt or lawn shoot it into the ground instead of the air. It does have to come down somewhere if you shoot into the air.

[ExiledInIllinois]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/23/cop-motorcycle-gun-hurts-students/3174121/

 

Maybe cops should practice "gun control."

 

"I don't wanna pickle, all I wanna do is ride my motorsickle."

[3rdnlng]

The Brownshirts strike again.

 

 

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2013/10/24/keystone-kops-on-a-daring-d-c-raid/?subscriber=1

 

Mark Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal record, is facing two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition after D.C. police raided his house looking for guns. Mr. Witaschek has never had a firearm in the city, but he is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The trial starts on Nov. 4.

The police banged on the front door of Mr. Witaschek's Georgetown home at 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, to execute a search warrant for "firearms and ammunition ... gun cleaning equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts." Mr. Witaschek's 14-year- old daughter let inside some 30 armed officers in full tactical gear.

D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with the police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.

Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witaschek's estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.

After entering the house, the police immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads of Mr. Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed. In recalling what followed, Mr. Witaschek became visibly emotional in describing how the police treated him, Ms. Harris and the four children in the house.

His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the police arrived. "They used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked," said his father. "The police put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening."