The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 22, 2012, 11:24 PM   #126
teeroux
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,489
We have about as much regulation already that I'm willing to support. Criminals don't care. We arrested a fella the other night for flashing a firearm at someone at a bar. When we found him we found out he commited several crimes in one sitting. He was arrested for aggravated assault, carrying a concealed firearm into an alcohol establishment, illegal carrying a firearm by a person convicted of certain felonies, possession of a firearm with obliterated serial number. After the firearms serial number was able to be identified from a combination of locations on the firearm it was discovered to be stolen and he was also charged with possessing a stolen firearm. Would magazine sizeor anything else really have made a difference? Whats one more charge to a street thug that is already committing multiple felonies by having the firearm anyway.

Last edited by teeroux; December 22, 2012 at 11:36 PM.
teeroux is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 11:29 PM   #127
joe sixgun
Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2010
Location: west michigan
Posts: 30
First of all, I admit, I did not read all six pages of this thread so please excuse me if I repeat someone elses comments.
OP, do you honestly think a safety course would have prevented the recent trajedy? Do you or anyone else believe that any law would have stopped it.
Since the 1000's of existing laws don't seem to cure the criminally insane, I just don't see how a few new laws are going to help. Maybe a law banning our media from broadcasting the criminals name over and over for weeks straight thereby making them famous would help. No fame or glory....maybe that will work?
__________________
DON'T TREAD ON ME !
joe sixgun is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 11:29 PM   #128
dspieler
Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2012
Posts: 25
I would argue that this requirement has 'face validity' and while empirical evidence would be great, that is sufficient.

I also think that this meets the evidentiary standard required by many other arguments advanced here (not to be argumentative, just arguing my case).
dspieler is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 11:30 PM   #129
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
All I've really been trying to say all along is that using the same arguments that fall on deaf ears, in the face of Newton, is ineffective.
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 01:05 AM   #130
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,303
Karl, the point I would like to make is that using any logic will fail when it is up against emotional arguments.

So what else can we do?

I'm not going to lower myself to use their methods (although it could be fun). It is morally and ethically wrong to do so. Besides which, the real anti-gun opponents are only using emotion as a cover for their agenda. They know full well that they have no logical ground to stand upon. Hence the need to use emotional tragedy as a cover.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 03:22 AM   #131
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
I will not support any tax, regulation, or such for firearms. I will not support any tax, regulation or such for any marketable product, income, or service.

I will support any tax and regulation cuts under any circumstances for any excuse or reason, whatsoever... whenever it is possible.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 07:06 AM   #132
8MM Mauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2011
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 450
Quote:
In some instances, people don't have money for a class. In some, they can't get transportation. In some, they lack the spare time.
Michigan requires a "class." It's a day long and usually requires about $150. I work full time during the day, go to school full time at night, and somewhere in between I raise my 18 month old daughter.

I don't have a license for the reasons you listed. As far as the cost, it literally often comes down to the penny for my family, so the spare money is not available; and while my Saturdays are technically free, I do on occasion like to see my wife and daughter!

I get why it make sense on paper for this, but it leaves people like me out in the cold.

Though of course, I also would only actually be able to carry on weekends, and both the school and my work prohibit it.

Apparently people in college don't need to defend themselves.

Maybe mandatory training would be ok if it had a defined standard: like you must meet this and this requirement, and the training should be free/government paid. It's the poorest people who are most likely to need to defend themselves anyway! Perhaps local PD's could host a class once a month that certified people?

This would require only your time and the officers time.
8MM Mauser is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 07:16 AM   #133
therealdeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 627
sometimes compromise is important for the greater good. I might support a gunshow loophole being tied depending on how the law read. There is nothing wrong trying to keep firearms out of the wrong person's hands.
__________________
NRA Distinguished Life Member

"Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan)
therealdeal is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 07:57 AM   #134
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
A: It's only a compromise if each side gives up something. Otherwise, it's just one side losing something.

com·pro·mise
[kom-pruh-mahyz] noun, verb, com·pro·mised, com·pro·mis·ing.
noun
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2. the result of such a settlement.
3. something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house . . . .
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compromise?s=t

B: There is no gun show loophole.
__________________
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  
Old December 23, 2012, 09:17 AM   #135
treg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2006
Posts: 1,020
Remember the GCA '68?

Incrementalism at work.

40+ years later we think it's normal to petition the .gov for permission to buy a firearm.


P.S. Also note it's effectiveness at deterring crime and violence.
__________________
"Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway." - John Wayne

.44 Special: For those who get it, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation is possible.
treg is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 09:35 AM   #136
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Karl
Effective communication requires not being stupid, especially when you are confronting a majority that is probably going to vote your rights away...
First, I don't believe that refusing to surrender even more rights than we have already is stupid.

Second, with regards to "a majority that is probably going to vote your rights away," I have two points to make:

(a) The Bill of Rights is, in many ways, designed to protect the minority against an encroachment on the minority's rights against the majority. For example, the majority of Americans could, through their elected officials, pass a law that prohibits anyone from publicly criticizing the President. Clearly, that would be unconstitutional. The right to free speech is specifically protected in the First Amendment, and political speech is given the highest level of protection available. As I teach my students, "The First Amendment is terribly undemocratic in that regard." By way of comparison, Chicago and Washington D.C.'s laws were held as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, even if their laws were passed as provided by law, by their duly elected leaders.

(b) I'm not entirely convinced that the anti-gunners are "a majority." That faction is very vocal at the moment, but that does not necessarily make them a majority. I do not see any point in accepting failure until the votes are tallied.
__________________
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  
Old December 23, 2012, 09:37 AM   #137
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 627
"I'm not going to lower myself to use their methods (although it could be fun). It is morally and ethically wrong to do so. Besides which, the real anti-gun opponents are only using emotion as a cover for their agenda. They know full well that they have no logical ground to stand upon. Hence the need to use emotional tragedy as a cover."

Emotion is the real reason people are calling for fast action. Obama wants this done in January! No time for real thought processes and discussion, but the emotion is still high. Our best chance is to delay decisions for at least two months when analytical and critical thinking can start to overcome emotion!
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 10:19 AM   #138
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,539
Just for a strategy point of view about the gun show loophole.

It does no good to say that there isn't a loophole anymore. That was the misconception awhile ago that there were no NICS for dealers at show.

That is cleared up in the most knowledgeable anti spokespeople.

They will argue now that the gun show is a convenient venue for private sales to come together with good guys and bad guys mingling. Thus, the show is an attractive nuisance as it expedites bad sales. Is that a loophole, not really but the counter to you saying there isn't one better be more than just there isn't one.

So if you want to come up with a gun show loophole argument - that's the current debate and saying there is one, won't work.

It's like how EBRS are now being clearly identified as semi-auto assault weapons to shut down folks saying an AR-15 is not an assault weapon as those are full auto.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 10:38 AM   #139
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
. . . . They will argue now that the gun show is a convenient venue for private sales to come together with good guys and bad guys mingling. Thus, the show is an attractive nuisance as it expedites bad sales. Is that a loophole, not really but the counter to you saying there isn't one better be more than just there isn't one. . . .
Fair enough, Glenn. How about this: There is no gun show loophole. The laws for transferring firearms remain the same whether one is buying or selling at a gun show, in a brick-and-mortar store, on a tennis court, or the back 40 of Uncle Fred's farm. If you buy from and FFL, then FFL rules apply. In the modern age of cell phones, an FFL can call in the NICS check just as easily at a gun show as he can at a brick-and-mortar store. If you buy from a private party, then private party rules apply.

As to the convenient venue & attractive nuisance part, gun owners, like any other group, have a right to peacably assemble under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

ETA: Personally, when I hear an anti mention the gun show loophole, I always want to ask, "Can you explain this gun show loophole to me?"
__________________
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  
Old December 23, 2012, 10:55 AM   #140
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Using the tenets of critical thinking, that is, reasoning without including emotion (sorrow and rage at the deaths of children; passion for guns that transcends compromise and resists regulation or denial of access to them in disregard for the risks they bring in unqualified hands) leads to these conclusions:

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 11:17 AM   #141
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
Using the tenets of critical thinking, that is, reasoning without including emotion (sorrow and rage at the deaths of children; passion for guns that transcends compromise and resists regulation or denial of access to them in disregard for the risks they bring in unqualified hands) leads to these conclusions:

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms. . . . .
First, to which "specific collected attributes" do you refer?
Second, self-defense or defense of others is not a "legitimate civilian activity?" I disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
. . . .The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.
I do not dispute that firearms are weapons with lethal potential, but millions of gun owners own, possess, and shoot firearms without the "military's filters," and they get through the day without shooting anyone. Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 terrorists killed thousands, yet no firearm was used in either incident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
. . . . The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.
I'll grant you that there are some folks who really shouldn't have access to firearms. However, I'd be curious to know whose hands you would define as "such inappropriate hands." Also, see my post above about the undemocratic nature of rights.
__________________
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  
Old December 23, 2012, 11:39 AM   #142
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,539
The attractive nuisance argument was used in Austin, TX to make the gun show move away from one location. The cops called it that, IIRC.

I hate to argue the anti side, Spats - but assembly is different from a commercial transaction. Does the state have the legal ability to regulate such? If you sell a car to someone, you have to go through a registration song and dance, if they are to drive it on city streets.

My point is how to you convince folks (if that is your position) that private sales don't go through a check. That is the rule in some states.

So, someone says - I understand the technical nature of the gun show loophole argument. I just want private sales to go through NICS if the sale occurs at a show venue.

Is it unconstitutional? Has it been challenged as such in the states that have such rules?

I might also speculate that the move to allowing carry without permits will slow and perhaps stop. Open carry - the same.

Just a guess. The state of TX couldn't pass campus carry (Gov. Perry aided in that defeat - bah).

If I were to bet, I'd say private sales going through NICS at organized gun shows has the best chance of being put in place.

The antis in the bastions of gun control want the feds to reverse CCW laws and confiscate EBRs. I doubt we would see that.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 11:45 AM   #143
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Billy View Post
Using the tenets of critical thinking, that is, reasoning without including emotion (sorrow and rage at the deaths of children; passion for guns that transcends compromise and resists regulation or denial of access to them in disregard for the risks they bring in unqualified hands) leads to these conclusions:

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.

Just because you say you're using the "tenets of critical thinking" and "reasoning without including emotion", doesn't make it so.

What you have there, is a predetermined conclusion worked backwards to a starting point that makes it seem logical.

You make numerous assumptions with no specified factual basis. None of the "logic" behind your conclusions is spelled out.

There is no logic in that sequence.

I'm not aware of a single mass murder in American history that was perpetrated with "combat military small arms". Newton certainly wasn't.

Claiming logic is not the same as using it.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 11:54 AM   #144
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
Glenn, yes, assembly is different than a commercial transaction. But if the argument is that "gun shows are a nuisance because they bring lots of gun foiks together (including some prohibited persons)," then we're talking about an assembly issue. OTOH, if the claim is that all firearms transactions should go through background checks, that's a different issue, and (to some degree) unrelated to gun shows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
. . . .So, someone says - I understand the technical nature of the gun show loophole argument. I just want private sales to go through NICS if the sale occurs at a show venue. . . . .
The question then becomes, "Why? What does a gun show have to do with it?" IMO, it's important to educate the public about this so-called gunshow loophole. For years, the gun show loophole has been (IMHO) one of the biggest lies of the anti-gun movement.
__________________
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  
Old December 23, 2012, 11:57 AM   #145
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Thanks, Brian, you beat me to it. Uncle Billy tried using the anti trick of presenting his position as the logical, reasonable one - thereby implying that any disagreement must be illogical and/or unreasonable.

Needless to say, I do not agree with him, almost across the board, and yet I do not consider myself to be illogical, unreasonable, nor even unduly emotional.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 12:09 PM   #146
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,539
I think we will clarify the loophole phraseology and then move to the private sales debate.

About assembly - in San Antonio, I recall hearing about court decisions or laws that gang members can't congregate.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...de-3796277.php

So is that a kind of precedent to use against the shows?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 12:15 PM   #147
Uncle Billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
First, to which "specific collected attributes" do you refer?
Light, easy to handle even with one hand while engaged in the athletics of "boots on the ground" combat, lethal but low recoil caliber to maintain aim while shooting in dynamic situations, at least semi automatic for rapid fire, large capacity magazine avoiding having to reload at short intervals, all collected in one weapon meant to engage with numerous armed enemy personnel equally or better equipped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
Second, self-defense or defense of others is not a "legitimate civilian activity?
Yes it certainly is, but weapons meant for small unit combat against numerous armed enemies aren't required, there are other less competent crowd-killers that are still competent anti-personnel weapons in personal defense situations. I have a number of them, and I'm licensed to CC in New York. A private citizen will probably never have to defend his home or self from attack by an enemy patrol armed with military small arms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
I do not dispute that firearms are weapons with lethal potential, but millions of gun owners own, possess, and shoot firearms without the "military's filters," and they get through the day without shooting anyone.
If the military demands that its recruits demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence before they are handed an M-16 of their own, and limits their use of their weapons to combat situations, what makes it reasonable that there's no such requirements on civilians who want to possess and control exactly identical firepower? You can't legally fly an FA-18 with a loaded and armed M61 Vulcan aboard by just buying one no matter how much money you have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 terrorists killed thousands, yet no firearm was used in either incident.
So what? Many more have died from wanton use of combat arms in civilian hands than from trucks full of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
I'd be curious to know whose hands you would define as "such inappropriate hands."
Anyone who has not met the military's requirements to demonstrate discipline, mental stability, responsibility and competence to have access to weaponry with capabilities (save full-auto fire which is an insignificant difference when assaulting unarmed unprepared unaware targets like 6-year-olds) identical to the military's combat weaponry.
__________________
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how popular it remains?
Uncle Billy is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 12:20 PM   #148
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Uncle Billy, the Murrah bombing killed 168 and injured hundreds. The truck bombing at the WTC only killed six, but injured thousands. Those are only two cases. Please provide stats to back up your claim about EBRs making such numbers pale, or else admit that the emotional and illogical one is you.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 12:22 PM   #149
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,366
So, a Buckmark 22 pistol with a big magazine would be a "combat small arm".

What is the source of your definition, besides making a definition that fits your forgone conclusion?

What you're doing is the opposite of reason and logic. Defining and redefining words/objects to fit the desired end result, or using the desired end result to define objects/words so as to point to that result.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 12:22 PM   #150
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
BTW, as a military reserve retiree and current overseas defense contractor, I am of the opinion that the military hierarchy is, in general, paranoid about possible AD/ND, to the point that weapons restrictions pose a safety hazard.
MLeake 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 06:13 AM.


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 0.14892 seconds with 7 queries