The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 17, 2013, 01:24 PM   #1
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,453
Just posted this on my local newpaper's comments section

Feel free to take and use whatever you want in your own paper, or letters to legislators, though you may have to change the city, population, and redo the math on how many people or parts of a people your city would produce...
People keep calling it a military style rifle. The Model LE6920 and LE6940 are both AR-15 style rifles. The LE stands for Law Enforcement. I see no reason why the general public should be barred from owning the same weapons to defend their home the police would use to rescue you from someone invading it.

The American public has long taken their cue for firearms ownership from their police and military forces. If they feel it is a viable and effective while still humane defensive weapon, the same would hold true for the general public. There are a number of reasons this is so, chief among the being if, God forbid, you have the worst day of your life and actually DO have to defend yourself these government agencies have tested the weapon to be reliable, and humane. It probably won't fail you in this critical moment, and it would be unlikely for the state to find your choice of weapon to be criminal and inhumane.

Out of all homicides nationwide, ALL rifles accounted for a minuscule fraction. The traditional bolt action hunting rifle or the evil scary black rifle. According to the FBI, of the 12,664 firearms homicides in the US last year, only 323 used a rifle. About 2 and a half percent. You realize what that means? According to the FBI there were 4.7 homicides per 100,000 people. So 2.5% of that is .012 per 100,000 people are killed with a rifle. With Seattle's population of 620,000 Seattle's measure of that statistic is 0.744 people.

Given the budget crisis facing governments at all levels, it would be incredibly irresponsible to expend money and resources criminalizing these rifles when that money could be so much better spent on "stones" that "kill" at least a whole "bird", or preferably even two or more.

Every dollar spent criminalizing something that just isn't used in crimes is a dollar we can't spend increasing the physical security at schools with fences. Not chain-link and razorwire, but certainly something aesthetically pleasing that encloses the campus.

Every dollar spent regulating these scary rifles is a dollar we can't spend on providing counseling to these kids having a hard time making the transition from kid supported by family to being on their own and making their own path in the world.

Every dollar we spend banning rifles for ridiculously immaterial features like a bayonet lug, pistol grip, or flash suppresor that provide no mechanical effect on an increased potential for criminal use and abuse is a dollar we can't spend further integrating our mental health reconds into the NICS check to keep disturbed individuals from falling through the cracks and buying guns when they shouldn't like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 06:42 PM   #2
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,453
And here are some interesting comments from someone else...

The Framers of the US Constitution didn't write the First Amendment with cable television, Internet communications or even the telegraph in mind. Should we limit the press's freedom of speech to the movable type printing press which was the primary means of mass communication at the time of the Framers?

I don't "need" my AR any more than Rosa Parks "needed" to sit in the front of that bus. My civil rights, like Parks', are not up for negotiation!

If the world is sufficiently dangerous that the police require semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines, then should not the free citizens who are sovereign over the police and who also live in the same dangerous world deserve to similarly protect themselves from it? In fact, are not the citizens -- not the police -- always the first ones who are forced to face those dangers?
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 06:45 PM   #3
5.56RifleGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,135
Nice and to the point. There are some good facts in there, with your reliable data source listed. Great job.
5.56RifleGuy is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 06:45 PM   #4
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 553
Nicely done, Jim. Dandy, even!

You know I had to do that...
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 06:49 PM   #5
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,495
Well done Jim. Thanks for posting.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 07:05 PM   #6
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,903
Quote:
I don't "need" my AR any more than Rosa Parks "needed" to sit in the front of that bus. My civil rights, like Parks', are not up for negotiation!
I like that. Nicely done.

The "good enough for LE, good enough for me" will only play well in places where LE have read their Sir Robert Peel (and his "Peelian Principles"), and do not refer to citizens as "civilians" ...... as if they themselves are something else. Before anybody jumps on me as a "cop basher", go read Lawdog's treatise on the subject: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...re-police.html

Refute THAT, if you can, and then tell me how wrong I am.

IMO, you are either a "civilian", with civil rights, subject to the COTUS, or you are "military", and subject to the UCMJ. ..... so many in LE seem to think they are not either, and are Law unto themselves.....
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 07:26 PM   #7
Daggitt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2011
Posts: 321
While I agree with the OP , aren't the Police already given access to a plethora of things that no ordinary citizen on the street will likely be afforded. The Police can get search warrants , automatic weapons , confidential arrest records and I guess explosives ? If your best argument is ,"Well the Police have it." I think that ship sailed a long time ago. Don't know if that argument really will sell to John Q. Public. I am with you all the way but have trouble wirh that particular proposition.
Daggitt is offline  
Old January 17, 2013, 07:29 PM   #8
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,903
Quote:
While I agree with the OP , aren't the Police already given access to a plethora of things that no ordinary citizen on the street will likely be afforded.
"Just because a thing is so, does not make it just."
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 18, 2013, 11:20 AM   #9
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,453
And I would think a private citizen involved in the right proceedings would have access to similar tools...

Fully Automatic weapons ARE available to the general public if you REALLY want to jump through the hoops.

A real lawyer would have to jump in to confirm/deny/clarify but I would think a motion for discovery isn't too far removed from a search warrant. I suspect that if you can provide the same level of scrutiny the police would have to, a judge may order a search warrant (I assume served by the police and not John Q Public) in the case of suspected violation of that discovery ruling...

In addition to just because it is, doesn't mean it's right-

Just because the mechanism isn't widely known doesn't mean it isn't there.

For a ridiculous hypothetical, your neighboorhood bans turning a detached garage into a man cave. You do so anyway. Your neighbor sees you doing it and sues you for violating the homeowners association bylaws or whatever the hell the actual jargon involved for this sort of thing is... It's conceivable the facts of the matter would be proven by a tour of your detached garage. It's further conceivable the judge could order you to allow others access to that garage to verify its car or mancave contents given sufficient cause.
JimDandy 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 01:26 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 0.08008 seconds with 7 queries