The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 18, 2013, 08:25 PM   #26
bigfig
Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 15
These stricter gun laws are so stupid. Any of ya'll notice that the places with the strictest gun laws are also the places with the highest crime rates. Granted, these are very large cities but stats are stats. The citizens of these cities are sitting ducks for the criminals.
bigfig is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 08:55 PM   #27
erikk
Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2012
Posts: 19
Which is why once I retired from the state police I voted with my feet and never looked back. You can talk & write letters till your hand falls off & you will NEVER change the way they think
erikk is offline  
Old January 19, 2013, 08:51 AM   #28
Noreaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 1,324
So does anyone understand what this means, "reduces access to high powered ammunition." Very subjective.
Noreaster is offline  
Old January 20, 2013, 09:14 AM   #29
KMAX
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,067
Excellent point, bigfig. I am in favor of stricter gun laws in the northeastern states and CA. That way the criminal element would tend to migrate in that direction and leave my area. Just kidding, I don't want to throw any of my fellow Americans "under the bus". Well, maybe a few, but I won't go into that as it gets too political. Back to the point, how is gun control in Chicago curbing gun violence or crime in general? I guess I am just not smart enough. Maybe that is why I am not in public office.
__________________
This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine.

I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC!
KMAX is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 03:00 PM   #30
+1k ammo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 191
Umm...its not. Has nothing to do with it.

Crime and murder in NY went down when Juliannie cracked down HARD on gangs and thugs a few years back. Chicago under Daily was too soft to put that pressure on the bad guys.

Result = crime still high in Chicago because they refuse to be hard on the really bad illegal gun toting criminals.

Although i just read that Rhom is introducing some new laws that increase jail time and fines for breaking the hand gun laws. That might acutally work, because if a little slap and time is all you get for toting around an illegal registered 30 round glock, then they are going to still do it time after time.

It's not that hard to be better about all of this, it's just that Politics gets in the way!
+1k ammo is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 06:18 PM   #31
North East Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2012
Location: Berkshire Hills
Posts: 501
The insurance law is a great idea. That way any ex boyfriend/stalker/husband can be assured that his down on her luck/unemployed ex woman will not be able to afford a gun permit. Should work out well to curb violence.
Also, those older people on fixed incomes won't pose such a threat to burglars.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Goal Member
SAF Member
North East Redneck is offline  
Old January 22, 2013, 06:36 PM   #32
UtahHunting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 424
I don't get the reasoning behind publishing gun owners names and addresses. It is like they are saying we are as a bad as a sex offender or something. Actually I don't get the reasoning behind any of it. Very afraid for the future.
UtahHunting is offline  
Old January 29, 2013, 08:51 PM   #33
Nick S.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 136
The US is in dept up to it's eye balls to China. China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps. Obama has 4 years to start the process.
Nick S. is offline  
Old January 29, 2013, 08:56 PM   #34
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,300
Quote:
China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps.
Do you have evidence for any of this?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 29, 2013, 11:11 PM   #35
CUBAN REDNECK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: SW FLORIDA
Posts: 246
Funny, first it was 10 rounds per magazine now it's the magical seven. OK, why and where did they choose 10 and now seven is all the rage. Oh, yeah, because the ultimate goal is ZERO.
CUBAN REDNECK is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 09:25 PM   #36
Coyote Blue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2011
Location: West Miami,Florida
Posts: 107
Quote:
Do you have evidence for any of this?
Of course! See George Orwell!
__________________
"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." G.K. Chesterton

From The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921
Coyote Blue is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 09:40 PM   #37
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 885
The US is in dept up to it's eye balls to China. China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps. Obama has 4 years to start the process.

Wow...just...wow...I don't even know where to begin with this one...
Kimio is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 10:45 PM   #38
KBP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2010
Location: Luthersburg, PA
Posts: 264
MA Gov following NY

I see the reasoning behind the 10 round or 7 round limit in semi autos. Its simple! It won't help anything, so in a year or two, they will come back and say, the ban has not worked as good as we hoped so we are going to ban ALL semi-autos regardless of how many bullets they hold. After that, in a year or two, they will revisit the laws and say, the ban on semi-autos has not worked as good as we hope, so we are going to ban all handguns, pump rifles and shot guns. In a few years after that, they will come back and say, the ban on hand guns, pump rifles and shot guns has not worked as good as we hoped so we are going to ban.... This is how they are going to operate. If we open the door for this new round of gun bans, we are all down the tubes as a free nation.
KBP is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 11:11 PM   #39
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,300
Quote:
It won't help anything, so in a year or two, they will come back and say, the ban has not worked as good as we hoped so we are going to ban ALL semi-autos regardless of how many bullets they hold.
...which will run head-on into the Heller decision. I have a sneaky suspicion they're trying to bait the Supreme Court on this.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 09:27 AM   #40
win-lose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 451
Quote:
...which will run head-on into the Heller decision. I have a sneaky suspicion they're trying to bait the Supreme Court on this.
Taking it a step farther.... my bet is that they are hoping for a "different" Supreme Court by the time a case makes its way up there....
win-lose is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 11:48 AM   #41
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,300
Even if they're banking on that, the Court isn't going to reverse precedent that quickly. It would call their very credibility into question.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 12:43 PM   #42
Nickel Plated
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 536
Quote:
I can understand why Mass cops are mad. The NY law applies to the police as well as the way the law we written there is no exception added for police.
That's the one part of the law I can actually support. Why should cops be exempt from the law? If "high-capacity" magazines are only made for murdering large numbers of people, why do the cops need them? The incident at The Empire State Building a few months back (and many others before that) clearly show the dangers of cops having "high capacity" mags.

Mentioning what I think of the NYPD on here would probably get me in trouble, but it's practically impossible to respect them (and I don't) when you hear their response after they realize that suddenly the have to follow the law to like the rest of us dirty commoners.

Give em all 7 round mags and let the criminals deal with them.

Quote:
The US is in dept up to it's eye balls to China. China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps. Obama has 4 years to start the process.
I have it on good authority that the Illuminati and Mecha-Hitler are involved as well
Nickel Plated is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 05:29 PM   #43
win-lose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 451
Quote:
I can understand why Mass cops are mad. The NY law applies to the police as well as the way the law we written there is no exception added for police.
That's the one part of the law I can actually support. Why should cops be exempt from the law? If "high-capacity" magazines are only made for murdering large numbers of people, why do the cops need them? The incident at The Empire State Building a few months back (and many others before that) clearly show the dangers of cops having "high capacity" mags.

Mentioning what I think of the NYPD on here would probably get me in trouble, but it's practically impossible to respect them (and I don't) when you hear their response after they realize that suddenly the have to follow the law to like the rest of us dirty commoners.

Give em all 7 round mags and let the criminals deal with them.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to pick a fight but these folks put their life on the line every day... it is there job to run TO danger. They should not be limited. We should not be hoping for things that would endanger them or those they are trying to protect.
win-lose is offline  
Old February 1, 2013, 06:07 PM   #44
Magnum Mike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 334
Quote:
it is there job to run TO danger. They should not be limited.
I disagree! They should be aloud the same amount as everyone else! You quoted"it is there job to run TO danger."
How is it fair that 5 cops with 150 bullets in there magazines Holding down 2 thugs with 40 bullets vs. 2 thugs holding me down but I only get 10! I can't retreat from the thugs but the LEOs can back off till more cops show up!
99% of the time it is civilians that meet the thugs first! Also why do they get to be exempt when they are off duty?
ps. It was also ruled that they do not have to protect!
Magnum Mike is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 07:58 AM   #45
SonOfLiberty
Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 55
I don't wish magazine capacity limits upon anyone, civilian or military. It's nonsense and nobody should be forced to face any threat to their health with inferior equipment.
SonOfLiberty is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 10:41 PM   #46
Nickel Plated
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 536
Quote:
I'm sorry, I don't mean to pick a fight but these folks put their life on the line every day... it is there job to run TO danger. They should not be limited. We should not be hoping for things that would endanger them or those they are trying to protect.
Frankly people like those are specifically the kind we don't need protecting us.

Did they complain about the law's unconstitutionality? Or that it limit's EVERYONE'S ability to defend themselves? No, they didn't care about any of those things. It's only once they learned that they themselves would be inconvenienced did they start whining.

Screw them. Once the police start getting the idea that they are somehow special and better than the mere "civilians" they must constantly deal with then their well-being is of little concern to me at that point.

If I lived where you do with the police force that you have. Perhaps one of the counties where the Sheriffs specifically refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, then my opinion would be much the same as yours. However when you deal with cops like these all these years, it's hard not to view them as a nuisance at best and and outright enemy at worst.
Nickel Plated is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 11:52 AM   #47
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,064
With respect to LEOs and capacity limits, there are two important concepts that really ought to be kept separate. One is: What are the odds of needing a firearm for defensive purposes? The second is: How many rounds does one need, in the event that one does need a firearm for defensive purposes. Those two issues often get tangled up in the discussions about LEOs and capacity limits.

Due to the nature of their work, LEOs have a higher probability of needing to use a firearm. I, as a civilian, do not do things like make traffic stops or strike up conversations with people who are unruly. LEOs do. That means that it is more likely that a LEO will need his gun to defend himself. By extension, this also means that LEOs face an increased probability of multiple attackers, as compared to myself.

However, once that "probability threshhold" has been crossed, and it's clear that a defensive gun use is in play, a law enforcement officer faces a human or humans, just as you or I would. Further, LEOs have the advantages of being able to get backup, and (normally) having notified someone of their whereabouts before making contact.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12149 seconds with 9 queries